Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (APPEALS)

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of appeals made to him by members of the Metropolitan Police Force from decisions of the disciplinary board under the Police Appeals Act, 1927, for the three years ended to the last convenient date; and the number of these appeals which succeeded?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): During the three years ended on the 31st ultimo three members of the Metropolitan Police Force appealed to the Secretary of State under the Police Appeals Act, 1927. None of the appeals was successful.

Mr. Day: Do these persons have an opportunity of being legally represented in appeals before the Home Secretary?

Mr. Peake: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN SUBJECTS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether the following German subjects. Dr. Marietta Goetze, Herr Heinz Mitschke, Dr. Wichert, Herr Bumbee, Dr. Gunther Gurcke, Herr Klaus Bumke, Herr Eberhard Heerde, Herr Karl Lin-hard, Fraulein Sonnenfeld, Herr Hildebrandt, Herr Huschelrath, and Herr Heinz Schloer, are still in this country; and for what purposes they were granted admission?

Mr. Peake: Of the persons mentioned, four have left this country, and three cannot be identified from the particulars given. Of the remaining five, four are

working as assistant teachers under Ministry of Labour permits and one is a student teacher.

Mr. Mander: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that all these persons have recently delivered lectures before the German propaganda agency organisation in this country known as the "Link," which is partly financed by the German Government, and will he make careful inquiries into the activities of these persons and decide whether they ought to be allowed to remain in this country any longer?

Mr. Peake: The information before my right hon. Friend is that most of the persons mentioned have given talks on various subjects at such meetings. On the general question, my right hon. Friend did give the hon. Member an answer yesterday on the activities of this organisation, and, of course, the question whether these particular individuals are abusing the hospitality of this country depends upon the nature of the talks which they have given.

Mr. Ellis Smith: With whom are they friendly?

Mr. Mander: May I have an assurance that their activities are being carefully watched?

Mr. Peake: That assurance has been given to the hon. Member several times before, and he can rest assured that the organisation is under very close watch all the time.

Mr. Gallacher: Has the hon. Gentleman been to see the film "Confessions of a Nazi Spy"?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (DEPORTATION).

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Home Secretary whether the five aliens smuggled into Britain on the Dutch ship "Velocitas," and who were recommended by the West London magistrate for deportation, have now been deported, and if so, to what country?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. The aliens in question were removed from the United Kingdom on 2nd August in the "Velocitas" to Antwerp, the port at which they had embarked for this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY INQUEST (JURYMEN'S FEES).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at the inquest held in Leigh on the five persons who lost their lives at Astley Green collieries on 6th June, the jurymen attended on nth, 17th, 18th and 19th July; that some of them had to lose work, and therefore wages; and will he say in what way recompense will be made to them for the loss?

Mr. Peake: The general principle of the law is that jury service is one of the remaining public services which citizens are required to undertake without financial compensation, though in some cases small allowances are payable. The amount which may be paid by a coroner to a person who attends at an inquest is governed by the scale of allowances made by the local authority under the Coroners' Acts. My right hon. Friend has no information of the scale of allowances fixed by the Lancashire County Council.

Mr. Tinker: Can the hon. Gentleman advise me how to tell these people to proceed in order to get some recompense, as this is a serious matter for a man who has to leave his work and attend for three or four days and get no recompense?

Mr. Peake: If these men have received no fees or allowances, they should apply to the coroner. The coroner has discretion within the limits fixed by the scale of fees laid down by the county council.

Mr. Tinker: May I take it that I should tell them to proceed on that line, and then let the hon. Gentleman know what happens?

Mr. Peake: I should prefer, if the hon. Member fails to get any satisfaction in that way, that he should take the matter up with the county council upon whom the primary responsibility falls for settling a schedule of fees and allowances.

Oral Answers to Questions — JOURNALIST (POLICE ACTION).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an assault committed by members of the Criminal Investigation Department upon Mr. Gladwyn Clements, a journalist of national repute, on Saturday evening last, 29th July; and what steps he intends to take to afford just amends to Mr. Clements and to prevent

in future such unauthorised attempts upon the freedom of the Press and the liberty of the subject?

Mr. Peake: The information my right hon. Friend has is that after the police who were in charge of some prisoners had requested certain photographers not to take photographs, one man nevertheless took a photograph. The police then took charge of his camera and when the prisoners had gone off by train returned it to him on his undertaking to destroy the film. On this version of the incident the hon. Member will no doubt agree that the photographer was in the wrong and not the police.

Mr. Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman say what authority the police had to request a photographer not to take a photograph in a public place, what authority they had to seize his camera by force, what authority they had to exact any undertaking from him, and what authority they had to destroy his film, if that indeed was the case?

Mr. Peake: To start with, of course, Euston Station is not a public place; secondly, it is one of the recognised duties of the police to protect prisoners, convicts and other people in their charge from publicity of this kind; and the hon. Member would be the first to complain if a prisoner in whom he was interested had been permitted by the police to have his photograph taken.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not in the public interest that when deportees are taken away under the recent Act with expulsion orders served upon them, the public should know who these people are?

Mr. Peake: No, certainly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY TRAINING.

HARDSHIP COMMITTEES.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications that have been made to hardship committees for the postponement of military training under the Military Training Act, 1939; and the number of these applications that have been refused?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): The numbers up to and including 27th July, 1939, were 7,980 and 3,171 respectively.

Mr. Day: Are any records kept by the Ministry to show the number of decisions that were unanimous?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Day: Have these persons the right of appealing to the umpire?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The rights provided for in the Act, of course, apply to all these people.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' EMPLOYES,

Mr. Gurney Braithwaite: asked the Minister of Health whether it is with the knowledge and approval of his Department that certain local authorities have made pay deductions for time lost by militiamen on their staffs when undergoing preliminary medical examination by the military authorities?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): The approval of my Department is not required in this matter. I have no information on the subject.

Mr. Braithwaite: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this allegation is being made in certain areas with a detrimental effect upon public opinion, in view of the fact that conscientious objectors received both railway fares and subsistence allowances when attending the tribunals?

Mr. Elliot: I cannot take responsibility for the local authorities.

Mr. Braithwaite: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to them?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (ENLISTMENT APPLICATIONS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of applications received for enlistment in the Royal Air Force for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date and the number that were medically examined, found physically fit, and attested?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I have been asked to reply. Of a total of 103,652 applicants for the 12 months ended 30th June, 1939, 66,276 were medically examined, 48,167 found physically fit, and 40,113 attested.

Mr. Day: Am I to understand that the remainder were rejected on medical grounds?

Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir. I understand that the difference between the number of those found physically fit and the number actually enlisted was due to cases in which applicants were rejected for other reasons, such as failure in the trade test, or did not proceed with their application.

Mr. Day: Are they notified of the reason for their rejection?

Sir. V. Warrender: I should imagine so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK (PASTEURISATION).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the disclosure in the report of the County Medical Officer for Wiltshire that pasteurised milk used under the milk-in-schools scheme and also pasteurised milk sent wholesale to London and else-where has been found to be tubercular: and what is being done in the matter?

Mr. Elliot: My attention has been called to this report by the county council. I understand that investigations were made and certain pasteurising plants in the county were found to be producing milk which was inadequately pasteurised. The county council informed the local authorities concerned, and the latter took the matter up. In forwarding the report to me the county council recommended that the responsibility for the licensing and supervision of pasteurising plants should be transferred from the local authorities with whom it now rests to the county council. This recommendation would involve an amendment of the Milk (Special Designations) Orders which would doubtless arouse controversy, but I will bear it in mind for consideration when other amendments of the Orders are contemplated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' CONTRACTS.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that local authorities are carrying out the recommendations of the circular issued to them in May last to make use of British shipping?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden) on 20th July last.

Miss Ward: Arising out of that reply, and not knowing what the previous answer was, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he receives reports periodically from the local authorities?

Mr. Elliot: The answer was given as recently as 20th July, and was to the effect that 173 local authorities had replied to the circular and that they were all sympathetic to the proposal, and that 164 had undertaken to include the necessary stipulation in their form of tender.

Miss Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend.

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will immediately communicate with all Government Departments and obtain assurances that as from 7th August full use will be made by them of British coastal shipping.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Communications have been addressed to all Government Departments and, through the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office, to local authorities, recommending that, whenever possible, all contracts in respect of goods to be carried by sea should contain a clause stipulating for shipment in British vessels.

Miss Ward: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report of an Air Ministry official which says that the putting into operation of this agreement depends on suitable contract forms being prepared and which refers to the exhaustion of the stocks of forms already in the hands of the Department, and does he think that is a suitable way of dealing with the suggestions made?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, I did see that report, and I made immediate inquiries of the Air Ministry. I am informed that they cannot trace any official having made such a statement, and that if it was made, it is entirely incorrect, because in fact all new contracts now being made contain this clause.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that so many Departments are concerned with shipping problems, will my right hon.

Friend consider the advisability of appointing a Secretary of Shipping under his guidance?

Mr. Stanley: The appointment of new Parliamentary Secretaries does not fall within my province.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Transport, whether he is satisfied that only British ships are employed for coastwise transit for contracts for which his Department is responsible.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bernays): It is a condition of all contracts entered into in respect of road and bridge works for which my Department is responsible that all materials or plant which are delivered by water-borne coastal traffic must be carried in British ships (so far as such ships are available) unless the prior approval of my right hon. Friend to the use of a foreign vessel has been obtained.. Such approval has never been sought.

NATIONAL SHIPBUILDERS SECURITY, LTD.

Mr. Howard Gritten: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the contract of the National Shipbuilders Security, Limited, with Irvines Shipbuilding and Dry Docks Company, Hartlepool, he will see fit to have the covenants rescinded as being plainly against public policy, especially in view of the fact that in the event of war the utmost output of vessels would be vital to this country's necessities.

Mr. Stanley: I have no power to interfere with a private contract of this nature. With regard to shipbuilding in time of war, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 2nd May last to a question by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson).

Mr. Gritten: Would it not be for the convenience of hon. Members asking questions that Ministers in their replies should repeat what the answers were to which they refer, and would it not be more courteous too to hon. Members for them to do so?

Miss Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that when a private company such as this, which is engaged in actually closing down and


selling for scrap urgently needed shipbuilding machinery, he has no power to intervene in the interests of public policy?

Mr. Stanley: I have no power at the moment. As I explained to the hon. Lady on that occasion, there is a surplus of shipbuilding capacity in this country, even taking into consideration possible war requirements.

Miss Wilkinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that, according to the statistics issued by his own Department, the shipping in this country is far below 1914 standards? How, therefore, can he say that he is taking into consideration all future requirements when the cutting down of shipyards has been so drastic; and does he not think that the time has arrived for some sort of committee of enquiry into National Shipbuilders Security, Ltd.?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that 100 years ago they would have got hung for that?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, except in one case, no qualifications other than the possession of a title or an O.B.E. are shown in the list of county and senior commandants of the Auxiliary Territorial Service in the latest available list; and whether he will issue a list of the full qualifications these ladies possess for the information of persons seeking to qualify for these positions?

Sir V. Warrender: The question is not readily apprehended. Neither the possession nor the absence of a title or of an O.B.E. is, in itself, a qualification. In the absence of previous experience, it was not possible to say in advance how competently any particular duty would be discharged, but it is anticipated that, in future, the posts of chief and senior commandant will normally be filled by promotion. It will be borne in mind that the appointments to which the hon. Lady refers are often arduous, and that they are not paid.

Mr. Braithwaite: Would it not be possible for the hon. Member for Jarrow

(Miss Wilkinson) to be given honorary rank and suitably photographed?

Miss Wilkinson: Perhaps I have not made myself clear, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the list as it is now published, he really thinks that the system of appointing only from a very narrow social class, the class of lords lieutenant of counties, does, in fact, produce the best type of women for these posts; and whether he does not think it would be wise to use some other qualification than that of frequent appearances in the illustrated society papers?

Sir V. Warrender: I can assure the hon. Lady that what she suggests in the last part of her supplementary question is not the basis on which appointments are made. I do not think that she would really endeavour to establish that the possession or non-possession of a title is a qualification or a disqualification. These ladies were selected as being considered the best choice which was available. I think it could be said for the most part that they are ladies who have taken a prominent part in local activities and that on that ground alone, they were suitable for these positions.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not singular that these positions should always be filled by persons who belong to what is called the upper classes?

Sir V. Warrender: It is not the fact that all these ladies belong to one social class.

Mr. Braithwaite: Would it not be possible for the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) to be given honorary rank?

NORTH IRISH HORSE LIGHT TANK UNIT.

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for War, when the reconstitution of the North Irish Horse Light Tank Unit of the Royal Armoured Corps will have proceeded far enough to enable recruiting to be opened.

Sir V. Warrender: It is hoped to start recruiting in about two months' time.

Mr. Ede: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is very disastrous that all these youths in Ulster, having been denied the benefit of conscription, cannot enlist for another two months?

Sir V. Warrender: The necessary administrative arrangements have to be made.

Mr. Ede: Did not the Prime Minister when he announced that he could not apply conscription to Ulster, make it clear that, at the earliest possible date, these people were to be given more opportunities for enlistment than English people?

Sir V. Warrender: We are making arrangements as fast as possible.

Mr. Ede: Is it at this rate that you hope to win the next war?

EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL (EMPLOYMENT).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War, when, in view of the fact that many ex-officers and others who have been serving as temporary clerks and in similar capacities with Territorial units have been replaced by women, he will do his best to find them some other form of employment.

Sir V. Warrender: I have no information to the effect suggested in the Question. On the other hand, recent expansion has given wide opportunity for employment to ex-service personnel.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether any recommendation has been or will be made to con tractors and others engaged in the construction of Militia camps and similar works to give preference so far as possible to ex-service men, and, where light work only is required, to take on partially- disabled or unfit ex-officers and ex-service men who, though willing to serve their country actively, are debarred from doing so owing to wounds or hardships suffered during the Great War.

Sir V. Warrender: Save in exceptional circumstances, War Department contracts are confined to firms who are enrolled on the King's National Roll, which involves the employment of a certain proportion of disabled ex-service men. In addition, fin urgent appeal is addressed to all firms who obtain a War Department contract asking them to employ as large a proportion of ex-service men on their works as they possibly can.

Sir J. Lucas: Arising out of these Questions, would the Minister consider an individual case of a wounded ex-officer

being replaced by a woman Territorial; and does he not consider that men who fought in the War should have preference over others?

Sir V. Warrender: That is a matter for the contractor.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH-RUSSIAN CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister, whether he has any statement to make on the progress of negotiations between Moscow and London.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I have nothing to add to the statement which the Prime Minister made on 31st July.

Mr. Adams: In order to complete the military side of these negotiations, will the Government of the United Kingdom now send to Moscow a Minister Plenipotentiary?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid I can add nothing to the statements which the Prime Minister has already made on this and other aspects of this matter.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Are we to take it from the remark made by the Prime Minister on Wednesday last, during the Debate on the Adjournment of the House, that he has very little hope of these negotiations being successful within the next month?

Mr. Mander: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the formulas put forward by the Russian Government on the one side and the British Government on the other to cover the case of indirect aggression?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. It is not customary to publish documents of this character without the assent of other parties to the negotiations.

Mr. Mander: In view of the controversy and uncertainty which exist in this country on this matter, does not the Prime Minister think that it would be in the public interest that the relative positions taken up by the two countries should be clearly stated, and will he be good enough —.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has had a very decided answer to his Question.

Mr. Mander: But may I ask —.[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I think there is a point which you will admit, Mr. Speaker —.[Hon. Members: "Order."] On a point of Order. The question I want to put to the Prime Minister —.I am not putting it now —.is this: He says that it is not desirable to make any statement without consulting another Government, and my point is whether he will be good enough to consider the possibility of consulting with the Russian Government about a joint publication. That arises directly out of the reply.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has already had his answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (SITUATION).

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the negotiations between Japan and the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to await the Debate which will be taking place this morning.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether the Japanese Government have yet furnished any evidence showing the guilt of the four Chinese alleged to have murdered a Japanese agent in Tientsin?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. The Japanese have communicated to the British representatives in Tokyo their evidence against the four men, and this is now under consideration.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether the Japanese Government have asked His Majesty's Government to prohibit the use of the Chinese dollar in Tientsin and to hand over the Chinese silver reserves held by British banks there; and what reply His Majesty's Government have made to these requests?

The Prime Minister: As I stated on 31st July, these are matters which involve interests of other nationals besides our own and we could not, therefore, come to any agreement about them without reference to other Governments. I may add that the silver is not held by British banks, but is in premises owned by the Bank of Communications in the British Concession.

Mr. Day: Have not other Governments already been consulted?

The Prime Minister: We are in touch with other Governments.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received from the Japanese Government to the representations made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in regard to the anti-British campaign in China, fomented by the Japanese authorities?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that this anti-British agitation still continues, will not His Majesty's Government press the Japanese Government for a reply; and, failing a reply, will they not consider recalling the British Ambassador for further consultation?

Mr. Butler: I think the cessation of the agitation is a great deal more important than the reply. His Majesty's Government have made their point of view perfectly clear to the Japanese Government, the latest occasions being the speeches by the Prime Minister and myself in the recent Debate.

Mr. Henderson: Has not ample time been given to the Japanese Government to answer these representations; and is it not an ominous sign that they have failed to do so?

Mr. Butler: I think they have had time, and I think there can be no doubt about our feelings in the matter.

Mr. E. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, speaking within the limits of the Far Eastern situation and having regard to the world situation, those of us who heard the Foreign Secretary speaking in another place last night were reassured with regard to the way in which this matter's being handled?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the fact that the Japanese are treating the Government with contempt?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister, whether he can make any further statement on the detention of Colonel Spear.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I regret that I have nothing fresh to report.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is there any prominent Japanese who might be detained pending the release of this officer?

Mr. Henderson: What action do His Majesty's Government propose to take in the event of the Japanese Government refusing to release this officer or even to bring him to trial?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and learned Member may be assured that we are taking a very serious view of this case and that we have the possibility of future action under consideration.

Mr. Churchill: Can my right hon. Friend say where this officer is at the present time, and is he satisfied as to the conditions of this officer's detention?

Mr. Butler: The officer in question is detained at Kalgan. There has been a delay in providing this officer with certain amenities, but we understand that in some respects the conditions of his detention have recently improved as a result of the representations which have been made.

Mr. Benn: What is the date of the last news which has been received about Colonel Spear?

Mr. Butler: I think yesterday.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it not plain that this officer's detention is a definite breach of international law and will not the Government be more vigorous in the protection of their citizens?

Mr. Butler: Vigour in this case is obviously necessary and the Government have not relaxed their efforts to secure this officer's release. As to diplomatic. immunity, there is some question whether this applies to the exact circumstances of Colonel Spear's movements.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the growth of Nazi aggression in Danzig?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the extent to which Danzig has now been militarised?

Mr. Butler: There has in recent weeks been increasing military and paramilitary activity in the Free City. As the Prime Minister stated in the Debate on Monday, the local situation is being carefully watched and the Polish Government is maintaining close contact with His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Adams: Will the mounting of heavy guns in Danzig be a test of direct aggression?

Mr. Butler: We have no information that they have been mounted.

Mr. Adams: Yes, but supposing heavy guns are mounted there, will it be a test?

Mr. Butler: I cannot answer a question of that hypothetical character.

Sir P. Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the High Commissioner for Danzig keeps the League of Nations informed of all proceedings there, in accordance with his duties?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, the High Commissioner is in touch with the Committee of Three, appointed by the Council to follow the situation.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not the case that Danzig, in effect, has already been completely handed over to the Reich, except for the introduction of heavy artillery which would command Gdynia?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (ASSETS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present position with regard to the Czech blocked accounts in this country; to how many persons and to what value payment has already been made or is contemplated; the total sum involved and its form; through what channel, apart from the Treasury, the administration is taking place; and with what persons and to what extent conversations have taken place concerning the matter with representatives of the German Government?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) on 13th July and


to the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) on Tuesday last.

Mr. Mander: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of my Question which is not covered in the answer to which he has referred me?

Captain Crookshank: As far as that is concerned I think it was covered. The fact is that there have been no conversations or negotiations subsequent to those informal ones which I reported to the House in the middle of May.

Mr. Mander: The question asks with what persons and to what extent these conversations have taken place. May I have an answer to that?

Captain Crookshank: If the hon. Member looks at the reply, he will find the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

TRAINING SCHEMES.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture what further steps he proposes to take in conjunction with the education authorities in London and throughout the country to encourage the recruiting, training, and placing of urban boys who desire to take up farming as a career?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): The general question of what steps it would be practicable to take to augment the supply of recruits for the agricultural industry is continuing to receive careful consideration, and in particular the institution of training schemes for boys is being examined in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I am not at present in a position to make a further statement.

Sir P. Hurd: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise the need for encouraging this training?

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider sending representatives of the Ministry to certain schools to point out the advantages of an agricultural training?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: All these questions are under consideration.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Agriculture, what weekly sum is being paid to a farmer in respect of training a woman for the Women's Land Army?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 3rd August.

Marketing Boards.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that Mr. J. A. Thomas, of Wisbech, has been made bankrupt in consequence of the proceedings against him of the Milk Marketing Board and is thereby unable to meet the cost of presenting his case adequately before the the committee of investigation, any pro vision exists by which he may receive assistance in the proceedings analogous to that available to poor persons in courts of law; and, if not, whether he will take steps to amend the regulations relating to committees of investigation to ensure that in this and other similar cases lack of means on the part of the complainant will not prejudice the thoroughness of the investigations or the interests of the complainant?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am not aware of any such provision. As to the second part of the Question, I would point out that the regulations in question may deal only with matters concerning the meetings, quorum and procedure of a committee of investigation.

Mr. de Rothschild: Does the right, hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that this man is to get no assistance in this matter, in view of the fact that in courts of law legal assistance is given in certain cases and in view of the unfortunate position of those who suffer from the exactions of the Milk Marketing Board?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I realise the difficulties in these cases, but I have given the answer.

Mr. de Rothschild: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not take any steps to help this unfortunate man?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: In view of what has gone on, I will give consideration to the point which has been raised.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not a primary British obligation to help anybody who is in difficulties and who cannot afford legal assistance?

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in the event of a committee of investigation under the Agricultural Marketing Acts finding that a complaint against the conduct of a Marketing Board is justified, there is any provision whereby the committee or the Minister may order the Board to pay to the complainant compensation for any damage he may have sustained or the costs of presenting his complaint before the committee; and, if not, will he take steps to amend the regulations accordingly.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am not aware of any such provision, and I have no power to amend the regulations in the manner suggested.

Mr. de Rothschild: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps in this matter also?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot give a definite undertaking as to what can be done, but I will say that, in view of what has happened in this case, I will consider the whole of this situation.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider putting the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) on the committee of investigation?

Oral Answers to Questions — SEA-FISH COMMISSION.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total cost of the Sea-Fish Commission for its first year of operation, showing salaries, separately, and when its first report will be published.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the answer to the last part of this question cannot contain anything statistical, and, therefore, will he give me an answer to that?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Certainly. The Commission's report reached my Department yesterday and will be published as soon as possible.

Following is the remainder of the reply:

The total net expenditure of the White Fish Commission for the period nth July, 1938, to 10th July, 1939, inclusive, was £2,092, made up as follows: —

£


Salaries
10,535


Travelling and miscellaneous expenses
784


Total 
11,319


Less receipts from registration fees
9,227


Net Cost 
2,092

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the hon. Member for Dulwich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he has yet come to any decision as to which of the three alternatives for raising the £2,400 necessary to pay 70 per cent. of his staff full-pay he is going to adopt?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: The advisability or method of raising the sum mentioned in the question has not yet been considered by the Kitchen Committee. I will inform the hon. and gallant Member as soon as a decision has been made.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is my hon. Friend aware that I sent a letter to Members of this House the answers to which have not yet been received, and that, therefore, instead of raising this question to-day, I will ask the hon. Member's agreement to postpone it till a later date, when we shall have got fuller facts?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is it not a fact that already all employés of the Kitchen Department receive three weeks' holiday in the year on full pay, and that in addition 30 per cent. of all the employés receive an additional three months' holiday on half pay?

Mr. Bracewell Smith: That is quite correct.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not also true that the Law Courts pay in full?

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the hon. Member for Dulwich, as Chair, man of the Kitchen Committee, what


would be the cost of agreeing to take on the 70 per cent. of the staff who normally would be dismissed this week for two months until the House reassembles in October; and whether he will do this so as to enable his Committee to consider final measures after the House reassembles.

Mr. Bracewell Smith: The cost of paying full wages to 70 per cent. of the kitchen staff, referred to in the Question, until the House reassembles in October would be £1,200. The Kitchen Committee have unanimously decided that this payment cannot be made.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Have any payments been made to the relatives of the two unfortunate people whose deaths have been reported?

Mr. Smith: So far no payment has been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEA FISH INDUSTRY ACT (ACCOUNTS).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in some fishing ports dissatisfaction with the method of inspecting settling accounts has not been removed by steps hitherto taken under the Sea Fish Industry Act; what steps have been taken to implement the specific assurances given by Ministers during the passage of that Act, that the staff of superintendents and staff to strengthen supervision would be increased; and, if not, when these assurances will be acted upon?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. I have received no complaints, and special reports called for from the Board of Trade superintendents at the end of March last indicated that the arrangements as to settling accounts under the Sea Fish Industry Act were working well. The staff at Grimsby was increased; and the question of staff at other important fishing ports is under review.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 12 months have now passed since the assurance was given that the staff would be increased, and can he say how much longer that question will be under review before the staff is increased?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think any assurance was given that the staff would be increased, if no necessity for it was shown.

Mr. Garro Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at the report of the discussion on the Bill, and then he will find that the necessity for an increase was then admitted and has not since been acted upon?

Mr. Stanley: I can only say that I have had no complaints, and therefore, prima facie it would appear that the existing arrangements are working well.

Oral Answers to Questions — NON-GRADUATE TEACHERS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings have taken place of the National Joint Council representatives of teachers and education authorities; and whether consideration has been given to the need for placing non-graduate teachers on the graduate scale in future after a definite period of service?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I am informed that the National Joint Council have held two meetings, and that they have not, so far, considered the matter to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister draw the attention of the Council to the importance of this question and the great injustice that these non-graduate teachers are suffering?

Mr. Wedderburn: I think my right hon. Friend said in reply to a previous question that he is not prepared to instruct the National Joint Council on what matters they should consider, but if the hon. Member wishes, I will undertake to see that this Question and Answer are brought to their notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Trinidad is willing to admit refugees and under what conditions; and whether they have granted the request of the Zurich Church Committee for Refugees to be permitted to send to


Trinidad 15 to 20 Christian refugees aged 25 to 50, selected as having special experience in industries suitable to the Colony and submitted for approval to the British Consul-General at Zurich?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Up to the beginning of this year Trinidad had already admitted some 500 refugees. The position regarding both employment and accommodation for refugees then became serious, and therefore the admission of alien refugees into Trinidad was prohibited except with the special permission of the Governor. I have no information regarding the latter part of the question, but am making inquiries.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the application for this particular group can be considered in view of the fact that they appear to be specially carefully selected?

Mr. MacDonald: I am making inquiries and I will communicate with the hon. Lady when I see the information.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet been able to make any arrangements for the disposal of the 700 refugees from Czechoslovakia now in quarantine in Beirut, and for whom he has been asked to find an asylum in Palestine, Cyprus, or some British Colony?

Mr. MacDonald: It is clear that these refugees embarked on one of the vessels attempting to land illegal immigrants in Palestine. I regret that the difficulties in the way of giving so large a number of unselected immigrants an asylum in a British Colony are very great. Amongst the considerations which have to be kept in mind are the opinions on the matter of the existing inhabitants of these territories.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that very great anxiety is expressed that something should be done, and has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration that the country from which these refugees come is one to which His Majesty's Government has acknowledged particular obligations, and that their plight arises directly out of the events of last March?

Mr. MacDonald: We have taken all considerations into account and we are

doing everything we can to facilitate the regulated settlement of refugees in different parts of the British Empire, but we cannot accept any responsibility for refugees who do not come within the regulated scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, how the estimated sum of £4,380,000, which represents the total amount of financial grants made to Colonial and Middle Eastern Services for 1938, is made up?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The figures quoted in the answer given to the hon. Member on 26th July, represented the total provision made in the original and supplementary Estimates for the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote for the year 1938-9, as indicated on page 7 of House of Commons paper No. 45, of 1939, less the savings and miscellaneous receipts which are expected to be realised. The savings and receipts which are, in fact, realised will, of course, be shown in due course in the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1938-9.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (SURBITON BOROUGH COUNCIL EMPLOYES.

Mr. Ede: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that the Surbiton Borough Council are compelling their employés to do air-raid precautions work in their spare time without pay; whether this action has been taken with his knowledge and approval; and whether he will represent to the local authorities that the success of this work must largely depend upon willing volunteers.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): My Department had no previous knowledge of the matter which appears to have given rise to the hon. Member's Question, but I have now seen a copy of a circular issued by the Surbiton Borough Council to their employeės which may possibly be open to misconstruction in failing to make sufficiently clear a distinction that must be drawn between employés in whom knowledge of Civil Defence matters is essential for the efficient discharge of the duties for which they are paid and other employés who have no obligations other than those that


they may assume voluntarily. I am making further inquiries.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman go further than making inquiries? Will he ask for the withdrawal of the circular and the issue of one that is strictly in accordance with the spirit in which he is endeavouring to administer the service?

Sir J. Anderson: As the House knows, the Government rely entirely on the voluntary principle in the recruiting and training of civil personnel, and on my present information I have no evidence that this Council has made any attempt at an inroad into that principle. I am not sure at the moment of the actual facts, and in the circumstances I do not want to commit myself to a more definite statement. If I come to the conclusion, after getting further information, that something has gone wrong, I will certainly do my best to put it right.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman will take steps to see that any misleading circular is withdrawn?

Sir J. Anderson: I will.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ELECTION.

Mr. Gritten: asked the Prime Minister, whether he will introduce legislation to make it possible if war broke out during the progress of a General Election for the election to be suspended and postponed and the old Parliament recalled.

The Prime Minister: The Government have not overlooked this matter, but they do not at present see any necessity for the introduction of legislation.

Miss Wilkinson: Will the Prime Minister now give us the date of the General Election?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, sometime before the Autumn of 1940.

Mr. Gritten: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the Government has no statutory authority for taking the steps mentioned in my Question, and that as the Act of 1797 applies only to the demise of the Crown special legislation would be necessary?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and as I said we have not overlooked it.

Mr. Lawson: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the war or the general election that is troubling the hon. Member?

Mr. Thurtle: Will the Prime Minister consider the possibility of introducing some legislation which will enable the old Parliament to be still in being until the new Parliament is actually elected?

The Prime Minister: I will think about that during the Recess.

Mr. Maxton: May we take it that the Prime Minister will not do anything in this matter which will give him an unfair advantage over his political opponents?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to, —

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

London Gas Undertakings (Regulations) Bill [Lords'], without Amendment.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

William Frederick Jackson, Esquire, for the County of Brecon and Radnor.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL

[Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 3rd October, and to be printed. [Bill 226..]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

FAR EAST (SITUATION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Captain Margesson.]

11.44 a-m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I desire to raise the questions of the present conflict in the Far East between Japan and China, the negotiations which are now proceeding in Tokyo and the action which His Majesty's Government ought or ought not to take to deal with the present grave situation. For two years there has been war in China, aggressive war, with the conquest of China as its avowed objective, which violates, as the Government admit, the Kellogg Pact, the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Nine- Power Treaty, of all of which Great Britain is a signatory Power. That war has been ruthless from the outset. It has been the most savage and the most law less conflict since Grotius wrote "The Law of War and Peace" 300 years ago. The good name of Japan has been stained by acts of shameless cruelty and carnage which history will not forget, and it has involved a sum of human suffering before which the imagination reels. That aggression has been accompanied from the outset by an unbroken succession of outrages against British and other foreign residents in China. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) said the other day that the American State Department

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1939.
2. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1939.
3. Cotton Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1939.
4. Building Societies Act, 1939.
5. Riding Establishments Act, 1939.
6. War Risks Insurance Act, 1939.
7. Public Health (Coal Mine Refuse)Act, 1939.
8. Air Ministry (Heston and Kenley Aerodromes Extension) Act, 1939-

9. Senior Public Elementary Schools (Liverpool) Act, 1939.
10. British Overseas Airways Act, 1939.
11. Aberdeen Harbour (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Act, 1939.
12. Dunbartonshire County Council (Kirkintilloch Street Improvement) Order Confirmation Act, 1939-
13. Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1939.
14. Motherwell and Wishaw Electricity, &amp;, Order Confirmation Act, 1939.
15. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bethesda) Act, 1939-
16. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bradford) Act, 1939-
17. Metropolitan Water Board Act,1939-
18. London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1939.
19. West Gloucestershire Water Act,1939-
20. London Gas Undertakings (Regulations) Act, 1939.
21. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1939.
22. London County Council (Improvements) Act, 1939.
23. Folkestone Water Act, 1939.
24. Sheffield Corporation Act, 1939.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

11.59 a.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I was saying that that aggression was accompanied by an unbroken succession of outrages against British and other foreign residents in China. Of course it is impossible to estimate the number, but the hon. Member for Kidderminster told us the other day that the United States Department of State have calculated that there have been at least 600 such outrages against American citizens. If that is so, the outrages against British citizens must run into thousands. I do not want to dilate on them at any length; everyone remembers what they were, from the deliberate machine-gunning of our Ambassador to the kidnapping and long detention of the


military attaché, Colonel Spear, the brutal murder of Mr. Tinkler, and the long series of insults and humiliations by stripping, personal violence and in other ways during the recent months in Tientsin. These events have been detrimental to British interests in many ways. The war itself, the fact of the aggression, has struck another blow at the structure of international law and at the new post-War pacts against war, which, on any right consideration, are the most vital of all British interests.
The outrages against our fellow-countrymen in China show very plainly that the militarists of Tokyo are pursuing the policy of the Tanaka Memorandum, and that their main objective is to drive all Westerners from Asia. In recent weeks they have shown us that they mean now, before the driving out of Westerners is complete, by using all the violence they dare, to compel us to become their actual accomplices in their aggression on China. That is the background against which His Majesty's Government began their negotiations over Tientsin. It is the background against which we must consider what we call the Tokyo formula, which the Government have now accepted; it is the background against which we must consider the demands which the Japanese have made and which are now being discussed.
I do not disguise the fact that from the very outset we have regarded the present negotiations with some anxiety. That anxiety is not caused only by the fact that, on the day when the Japanese blockade began, Dr. Goebbels told us that it was going to be the Munich of the East. It was caused still more by the resemblance of these negotiations to those which produced the Italian Treaty a year ago. Last year, Italy was doing propaganda against us; she was making trouble for us in Palestine; she was massing troops in Libya as a menace to Egypt; she was intervening on an extensive scale in Spain. Then we asked her what she wanted from us, what she would take to stop this illegal course of provocation; and what she wanted in fact was recognition of aggression and its results in various forms. We gave it. I am not saying whether it was right or wrong, but we recognised her sovereignty over unconquered Abyssinia, we agreed to various formulas which were used later

to justify and legitimise her war on the constitutional government of Spain. She took all that we gave her; she gathered in all the prestige of our capitulation over Abyssinia; and she gave us just exactly nothing in return. The war against the Spanish Government went on; the trouble in Palestine got worse; the troops in Libya were increased in numbers; beyond what they had been before. To-day there is hardly a clause in the Italian Agreement which has not been torn to rags.
We are faced with the same situation by the Japanese. They, too, are attempting what a noble Member of this House once called blackmail. They have used illegal violence and provocation against British interests and British rights. We have asked them now what they will take to stop. They tell us, or they go as near to telling us as they dare, that they want our recognition for the legitimacy of their war in China. And so, when we say that we will negotiate about their demands at Tientsin, they ask us first to discuss what they call the background. We do so. We give them the formula drawn up in Tokyo ten days ago. I know that the Government have categorically denied that that means any change of policy of any kind. I know they have assured us that it affects in nothing the rights of China in international law. I am very glad of those assurances, and thank the Prime Minister for having given them, but I ask him for one moment to look at the formula, to consider its terms, and to consider how it has been interpreted and how it has been received. It lays down — and this is really the only point in the formula — that His Majesty's Government
 fully recognise the actual situation in China
and note that
 the Japanese forces in China have special requirements for the purpose of safeguarding their own security and maintaining public order in regions under their control.
I ask hon. Members to consider the words "special requirements". The "Times" correspondent in Tokyo, in a message the other day, said that the task of the conference was to meet the Japanese Army's "legitimate requirements." I know how "Times" correspondents do their work. I have had, as an official, to deal with them for many years. I think it is very unlikely that the "Times" correspondent would use the word


"legitimate" as a gloss on the word "special" unless he had heard someone do so before. I think that gloss has much importance, because, unless the word "special" means "legitimate," it means nothing at all. The Japanese Army have no legitimate requirements in China; they have no right to be there.
I submit that, whatever the Government desire, the mere fact of the formula having been drawn up means a quasi-recognition of the Japanese invasion. That is why it was interpreted in Chungking as a disaster; that is why the British Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai said it was likely to result in a deplorable betrayal of British rights, obligations and interests in China; that is why it was received with anxiety, if not with actual dismay, in the United States. That is why the Japanese Prime Minister said that it would be a big shock to the Chungking Government, and would be "a favourable factor in disposing of the China incident." I know that the Prime Minister has repudiated what the Japanese Prime Minister said: that, in fact, we must help the Japanese to conquer China if we want peace; but I submit that the formula is, and cannot but be, open to this interpretation.
What has happened as a result of our giving this formula? The Japanese Government have used it immediately as a starting point for further far-reaching and in-acceptable demands. First, they have asked for what they called the neutrality of the British Settlements and Concessions. No one wants the Settlements and Concessions to be the centres of war, but I remember that in 1932, and again in 1937, when the Chinese had halted the Japanese invasion at Shanghai, the Japanese used the International Settlement to land troops, stores, guns and munitions, under the protection of foreign ships, and the Chinese could not enter to repel them. They used that landing to take the Chinese armies in the rear. The Chinese have not forgotten that, on those occasions, we did nothing to uphold the neutrality of the Settlement. The Japanese say that, to ensure neutrality, they must have a system of joint police control. I view that suggestion with grave misgivings if the Japanese police are to behave there as elsewhere and if their admitted function is to hunt and per-

secute Chinese citizens who are loyal to their own Government at Chungking.
Still more important is the Japanese demand for the handing over of the four Chinese who, they allege, murdered another Chinese at Tientsin a few months ago. This is a matter of the very highest moral and political importance, and I hope the Government will tell us, not only that they have not yet decided, but that they will not decide, to hand over these men. The Japanese, as far as I am aware, have failed to produce any evidence of these men's guilt. If the Japanese had such evidence, I am sure it would have been published far and wide. As the Under-Secretary said the other day, in answer to a Question, there are no Japanese courts with legitimate jurisdiction in invaded China. If these men were handed over to the puppet courts that have been set up in China, that would be a recognition of the fake regime which the Japanese have set up. The only courts that could try them legitimately are the Chinese courts at Chungking.
If we hand them over to the Japanese they will, no doubt, be tortured into confession, and then killed. I have here a letter from a British lawyer, Mr. Gads by, who practised for 28 years in Tokyo in the Japanese courts. He tells me that nearly every man accused in Japan confesses to the police or the procurator in the course of his preliminary examination. It is a matter of public knowledge that torture is used, and sometimes a man dies under torture. When it is known that prisoners have been tortured, the Tokyo Bar in a good many cases turn out in force to defend them, and in such cases the courts usually decide that there has been irregular conduct on the part of the police and disallow the confessions. I suggest that to hand these men over to the police would be disastrous to the British name in Asia, in India, and in Africa. It is one of our proudest boasts that we have stood for the sanctity of legal justice, and to hand over these men would strike a mortal blow at our reputation among the Chinese people, and would be regarded as an act of shame in the United States. I beg the Prime Minister to tell us that we are not going to hand over these men, as helpless pawns in our diplomatic game to a fearful death.
The Japanese have demanded that we should give them the £ 800,000 of silver now lying in the Chinese Government banks at Tientsin. They have tried to make a quasi-legal claim. They have said that the silver belonged to the Northern Political Council, and that that Council has ceased to exist and has been replaced by the new regime at Peiping. That argument is utter rubbish. The Northern Political Council was established under the laws of the Central Chinese Government at Nanking. Its members were appointed by Nanking. The silver was and is the property of the Central Government of China. It cannot be given to the puppet regime without recognising that regime de jure as the legitimate Government of invaded China. The Government simply cannot do such a thing. It would be complicity and robbery which any British court would inevitably condemn, and I hope and trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance on that point. Much more important, the Japanese Government have demanded that we shall prohibit the use of the Chinese dollar at Tientsin and shall compel everybody, foreign and Chinese, to use the worthless Federal Reserve Bank notes which they have issued instead.
This is a really fundamental issue in the present negotiations with Tokyo. I venture to believe that if the Japanese demand is not accepted the Japanese will break off the negotiations very soon. I am glad to think that I have some confidence that the Government will tell us that they will not accept this demand either before or after consultation with other Powers. I do not see how they possibly could accept it. For one thing the legal argument which I have already put forward seems to me quite decisive. They cannot forbid the Chinese dollar or accept the Federal Reserve Bank notes without according de jure recognition to the Japanese regime in the invaded areas of China. It would be utterly inconsistent with the policy stated in the Government note of 14th January, which the Undersecretary reaffirmed the 'other day — a policy of upholding the Nine-Power Treaty and of ensuring the political, cultural and economic integrity and independence of the Chinese State.
I hope that on that ground alone the demand that we shall forbid the Chinese

dollar in Tientsin will be promptly, finally and publicly rejected. Indeed I hope it will be rejected before our Debate to-day comes to an end. In truth, the legal aspect of this demand is much the least important. It is the economic and military purposes of the Japanese that we ought to keep in view. What do the Japanese hope for if they succeed in making us do what they desire? They hope to secure, first, a greater share than they already have in the import and export trade of China, in that way working not only towards their dream of monopoly of foreign trade at our expense but also adding greatly to their strength in the conduct of the war. They hope to strike a blow, as undoubtedly they would, at the stability of the Chinese dollar in the rest of China. They hope to defeat our efforts to maintain the stability of the dollar and in so doing to make it harder for China to secure munitions and other assistance from abroad. But above all — and this is really the point I want the Prime Minister to consider — they hope to destroy the guerilla movement in the vast areas which they have nominally occupied but which they do not in reality control.
There is a real sense in which the Japanese are right when they say that the currency question has a connection with public order in invaded China. It is common knowledge that the Chinese peasants have vigorously and consistently refused to touch the bogus Japanese currency in the invaded areas. It is common knowledge that it is with Chinese Government dollars that the guerillas have purchased their foodstuffs and kept their bands alive. The guerilla movement has become the most important single factor in the Chinese war. By the action of guerillas the proportion of Chinese losses has been reduced from 10 Chinese to one Japanese, as it was in the first year of the war, to one Chinese for one Japanese; in other words, equality of losses, at the present time.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): indicated dissent.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister expresses a doubt. Perhaps it is an exaggeration, but I have been in touch with some impartial authorities who have examined the matter.

The Prime Minister: I should have thought it was a subject on which it would be extremely difficult to get reliable information.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have endeavoured to consult authorities in close touch with the situation. It is true at any rate that the proportion of Chinese losses has been enormously reduced by the guerilla movement. I do not think the Prime Minister will deny that the Japanese know that their only hope is to destroy the guerilla movement, and incomparably the most effective weapon they could have would be to destroy the Chinese peasants' faith in the Chinese dollar. It follows that if we lend ourselves to any plan which helps towards that end we shall not only be infringing the legal rights of China "but helping Japan to increase her economic strength at the expense of China and ourselves, and we shall actually be intervening in the war against the Chinese people in the most effective way.
I think I have shown that we view with anxiety these negotiations with Tokyo and the demands which the Japanese have put forward. They have led us to the acceptance of a formula which we think is open to objection in spite of all that the Government have said to restrict its meaning. The formula has led us to a series of unacceptable demands which I cannot think the Government will fail to reject. Then what happens? When we do not immediately accept these demands the Japanese continue with the methods of blackmail. They have increased their pressure, since the negotiations began, in almost every way. It is about two months since we first began informally to discuss the matter, and in those two months the Japanese have not only maintained an illegal and monstrous blockade at Tientsin but — the Prime Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right — they have virtually blockaded Kulangsu, occupied Swatow, virtually closed the treaty ports of Foochow and Wenchow, closed the Pearl River, thus virtually blockading Shameen, and they have begun measures to cut off the foodstuffs from Hong Kong. On the 25th July the "Times" reported that they were beginning to operate an undeclared partial blockade of Hong Kong. They were mining waters in some of the adjacent ports and they were intercepting cargo junks. They were bombing the railway and bombing the roads around

the border. The "Telegraph" told us the next day that they had wiped out a complete fleet of 400 junks and that of 1,000 men and women only a few had survived.
All these measures are designed to make food scarce at Hong Kong, and food prices have been rising. At Tientsin the Japanese commander cynically declared on 26th July that the traffic restrictions, as he called them, would not be lifted until their objectives had been fully attained. As lately as this morning the "Times" states from Shanghai that the Japanese blockade has been visibly tightened at Tientsin. They have again curtailed the milk supply and once more are stopping vessels in the river, in spite of the danger of accidents. There are various other ways in which British citizens are being molested and being interfered with at other places. The Chinese are being intimidated in order to make them leave British employment. Two women were stripped, according to a newspaper report, at Kaifeng only two days ago, and according to the "Times" this morning violent anti-British posters have again been plastered all over Chefoo, adorned with gruesome pictures of skulls. The blackmailer is pursuing the methods which he thinks he has made to pay. All this is very damaging to our prestige, and prestige is important in the East. It means the power to govern without armed force. It is very damaging to our interests, but we are afraid that it may be worse than that. We are afraid that it may be damaging to the whole policy by which the Government are seeking to avoid a war. In our view the Government are being led — very unwillingly I quite recognise — to compromise the basic principle upon which our policy against aggression must be based.
A week or two ago the Prime Minister was answering a question about the discussions of the background of the Tientsin question, and I ventured to ask him whether he would remind the Japanese that the real background of the matter lay in the fact that they were permitting aggression which was internationally condemned, and that if the aggression was ended every outstanding question between us could quite easily be solved, and the Prime Minister replied that he did not think that a very helpful suggestion. I think, with great respect, that that


goes to the root of the matter. The Government declare that they are now trying to organise a Peace Front against aggression. But they cannot do it if, in the Far East, they virtually or by implication accept aggression, if they recognise as legitimate requirements the military needs which that aggression creates, and if they make concessions to that aggression of various kinds.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why he thinks that so many of the nations which are to-day threatened with aggression hesitate to join the Peace Front so vigorously and demonstratively? Why do the Dutch of all people declare that they do not want the British guarantee? They have always stood for collective security at Geneva and have always accepted every plan. Why has American opinion swung back so powerfully to isolation? I believe that one of the factors — I do not put it higher than that — is the belief of the people of that country that for us aggression is still only aggression when we ourselves are openly menaced or attacked. I do not believe that our general policy against war can possibly succeed unless and until we recognise and declare that China to-day is part of the Peace Front and act upon it. I hope that the Prime Minister will recognise it here and now, and that he will tell us that the Government are going to make no more concessions to Japanese blackmail; that they mean to help China to repel aggression, as they promised to help her in the resolutions of the League of Nations; that they will not hand over the four Chinese to certain death; that they will refuse to give up the Japanese Government's silver; that they will support the Chinese dollar as they have done hitherto; and that they will urge — this is a practical suggestion for consideration — the French Government to pay over to China the credit for supporting the Chinese currency which the French Chamber has already voted, and they themselves will give another loan to China to support the currency if that should be required. I hope that they will tell us that they will expedite the present agreement for export credits to China and that they will give a considerable share of the new £ 60,000,000 to China if she should ask that that should be done. Above all, I hope that the Government will tell us that they are going to follow America's example and will abrogate our Trade Treaty with Japan.
The "Financial Times" declared the other day on the front page that in the opinion of the best informed quarters in London the Japanese were virtually at the end of their supplies of gold and foreign exchange. Nobody will give them credit. They can only buy abroad the imports of oil and minerals and other vital raw requirements with their exports, and of their exports the British Commonwealth of Nations — this country, India, the Dominions and the Colonies — are taking now 41.3 per cent. The stoppage of our purchases alone would be a mortal blow to Japan, and I submit to the House and to the Prime Minister that it is utterly grotesque that, while we are spending countless millions to confront aggression over here, we are by our purchases of Japanese exports financing their aggression in the East. I hope no hon. Member will say that this is a wild and irresponsible programme of support for China. It is very largely supported, I understand, by the China Association in their remarkable analysis of the British interests in the East, reported in the "Times" to-day. I hope that no hon. Member would say that it would provoke a war. I know that there are high authorities in this House who scoff at the idea.
It seems to me quite plain that Japan's general trade position, with her utterly disastrous military position in China, and, indeed, even her naval position, with her long and vulnerable lines of sea communications, make it impossible for her to risk another major war. If the Government would take this action which I have outlined, I believe that they would not only save China in her hour of need, and that they would not only do more to win American opinion for real co-operation than they could do in any other way, but they would strengthen their hand in their new policy of the Peace Front throughout the world. I would go further. The present chaos in which we live began in Manchuria eight years ago. It may well be that the next world war will begin with a clash in the Far East, but if we take this action it might be that, by courage instead of surrender, we should avert a European war.

12.33 P.m.

The Prime Minister: In the course of the Debate which took place so short a time ago as Monday last we discussed to some extent the situation in the Far East,


and I do not know that since then anything has happened greatly to change that situation, so there is not very much for me to add to what was said then. The hon. Member who has just spoken, as we all know, holds his views very strongly on the subjects which he discusses, but perhaps, on the whole, the observations he has made to-day were less fire-eating than they have been on previous occasions. I have always found a difficulty in answering him, because he always appears to try to push the Government to go a little further in their statements, pledges and assurances than I think they ought to go, and it puts me in this position, that, in refusing to put my foot upon what seems to be unsound ground, I may seem to be willing to go less far than in fact I really am going. Therefore, while I am afraid that I cannot give complete satisfaction to the hon. Member by giving definite assurances on a number of items on which he spoke, it must not be assumed that I am seeking to minimise the Government's strong objection to many of the incidents in which the Japanese have been concerned in the course of the last few months in the Far East, I want the House to bear in mind that the situation for this country is particularly difficult.
Sometimes I hear hon. Members ask why we do not do as the United States does. It is hardly necessary for me to point to the fundamental difference between the United States, with its isolation from Europe, and this country. Surely we must all the time, in the presence even of these insults and injuries which have been inflicted upon British subjects in China, remember what are the limits of what we can do at this particular time to help our people there. At the present moment we have not got in the Far East a Fleet superior to that of the Japanese. We have such a Fleet here, and in certain circumstances we might find it necessary to send the Fleet out there. I hope no one will think that it is absolutely out of the question for such circumstances to arise. I do not mean that as a threat but only as a warning. We would much rather settle our differences with the Japanese by discussion and negotiation, provided we can do so without sacrificing what we conceive to be fundamental considerations or principles, than do it by resort to force.
There is another thing too, that we must remember, and I wonder sometimes whether hon. Members have it in mind. I think of all the lonely unprotected, defenceless British people scattered about in different parts of China. Even if we determined to-morrow that we were going to the last extremity we could not, perhaps, protect many of those people. I do feel that we have a duty to them, that we ought to bear that in mind and that we ought not, if we can avoid it, put them in greater peril than that in which they now stand.
I want to pay a tribute to the British Ambassador in Tokyo who is carrying on negotiations at the present time with, it seems to me, great skill, great coolness and courage, under extremely difficult circumstances, and in climatic conditions which I am told are at this time of the year particularly trying. We have agreed to a formula which has been the subject of some animadversions by the hon. Member. He says that the formula is open to interpretations which he admits the British Government have refused to accept as being legitimate interpretations. Nevertheless, he says that the formula is open to these interpretations, and he criticises it on that ground.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I said that in my view it is impossible to resist those interpretations, because unless the word "special" inquiry means legitimate inquiry it does not mean anything at all.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member lends his authority to that interpretation, I am sorry that he does so. I do not think it does us any good. After all, it does not really so much matter what interpretation people put upon the words; the real question is, how are we in fact going to interpret it in practice. If the British Government say that we do not regard this formula as implying any change in our policy, which, in fact, has not changed, surely that is of much more importance than an alteration in the words of the formula, which has been arrived at after much difficulty and after hours of discussion on both sides. At any rate, this formula has enabled us to discuss the very acute situation in Tientsin. In some aspects and in some parts of the difficulties at Tientsin it does look as though we should not have any great difficulty in coming to an agreement with the Japanese. I say that deliberately,


although the House will understand that it is no use coming to an agreement on one point if there are other points on which we cannot come to an agreement. The agreement must be an agreement on everything. It does show, however, that those who are conducting these negotiations in Tokyo are by no means so extreme or so unreasonable as we have found many of the Japanese in China itself.
The hon. Member says that the Japanese are demanding joint police control in the Tientsin concession. I am not quite sure what he means by the Japanese in that connection, because, as he pointed out, there is not always complete unanimity between Tientsin and Tokyo. In case of doubt I think we must accept the Tokyo view. I can only say that the basis upon which our discussions in Tokyo have been proceeding on this subject of police control has not been on the basis of joint police control. They have been on the basis that the control should remain in the hands of the municipal council or its officers. The hon. Member also mentioned the case of the four men, and he asked me to give an assurance that in no circumstances will these four men be handed over.

Colonel Wedgwood: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: I should have expected the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take that view. I do not call him a judicially minded person, if I may say so.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is not a question of being judicially minded. It is a question of national honour.

The Prime Minister: I do not agree at all. On the contrary, I say that it is a question of evidence. If there is evidence that these men were actually concerned in the murder of Dr. Cheng, does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is a point of honour that we should not hand them over?

Colonel Wedgwood: Who is going to prove it?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has the right to raise that point. Our point all through has been that we cannot hand these men over unless we have evidence to show us that

they were concerned in the murder. The Japanese have now submitted their evidence, and that is being examined. I am not going to pronounce on what the verdict may be. The evidence must be examined not by me, but by proper legal authorities. If the result of the examination were to be that the guilt of these men were established, or a prima facie case for the guilt of these man were established, then we should have no right to do anything else but hand them over.

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is a very important matter. This is the murder of one Chinese by other Chinese. No Japanese courts in China have jurisdiction over Chinese, only over Japanese. To what court will these men be handed over?

The Prime Minister: They would be handed over to the Chinese District Court which would deal with such a case. That is the authority to whom these men would be handed over, if they had to be. There are no Japanese courts except the consulate courts, and they only try Japanese, not Chinese.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are not these district courts under Japanese régime, and, therefore, to hand them over to these courts is to recognise their jurisdiction, and is a de jure recognition of the Japanese regime in China.

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member is going too far. These courts have been in existence all the time and they are courts to whom people have been handed over not only by ourselves but by others for the last 20 months, and we cannot now suddenly put up a new story and say that we cannot recognise these courts.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Does that mean that we have abandoned the principle of the earlier Tientsin negotiations in having the case submitted to a joint tribunal?

The Prime Minister: We have said from the beginning that the evidence should be given to us by the Japanese on which they base their claim that these men should be handed over to them. They refused to give us that evidence, and it was then that we made the suggestion of a tribunal. Now they have given us this evidence and, therefore, that question no longer arises.
Let me pass to other important questions which have been raised. There is


the question of silver and currency. The difficulty there is that it is agreed that these discussions are to be local discussions, about the local situation in Tientsin, and if you take the matter literally these questions are Tientsin questions. The silver in question is in Tientsin, and the question that is raised about currency refers to the circulation of currency in Tientsin. In the view of the British Government we cannot deal with these questions in Tientsin without really dealing with the questions elsewhere than in Tientsin, in fact, throughout the whole of Northern China. Whatever you do about silver and currency it must affect a very much wider area than Tientsin, and it follows from that that it is not only the British Government which is concerned in these two points. We have made it perfectly clear to the Japanese Government that we are not prepared to settle with the Japanese alone these two questions of silver and currency, but that they can only be settled after consultation with other Governments who are as concerned as we are in the general question of the future position of silver and also of currency. They are closely allied.
I am not going to lay down in the definite way which the hon. Member asked me what our attitude is going to be, consultations or no consultations. I do not think it is the proper way to begin consultations with any other country to say, "We have already taken our decision, and now we are going to consult you." If you are going to consult them you must reserve your decision; but I will go so far as to say this, that I do not take exception to what the hon. Member said as to the connection between the maintenance of the Chinese currency and the capacity of the Chinese to carry out a guerrilla warfare in northern China. I recognise that, behind this question of currency, which I agree with the hon. Member is probably in the minds of the Japanese the fundamental question in this matter, there is a much larger question, and that is the ability of the Chinese to carry on the warfare successfully.
The hon. Member finished by saying that in his view the British Government should also declare that China is a part of the Peace Front, and that we should act upon that. I cannot understand what

the hon. Member means by that. Does he mean that we should treat China like Rumania or Poland and guarantee her against aggression? Surely in using those words and in saying that we should treat China as part of the Peace Front, he is using words very loosely and without any clear idea in his mind, and certainly conveying no clear idea to the minds of others as to what exactly he has in mind. Perhaps the hon. Member will enlighten us.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have a clear idea that His Majesty's Government should make it plain again, as they have done on innumerable occasions at Geneva, that they accept the resolution passed there; that they regard China as the victim of a Covenant-breaking aggression which also violates the Nine-Power Treaty and the Kellogg Pact, and that they should take the measures which I outlined, the necessary concrete and practical measures, to give support to China at the present time, including a denunciation of our trade treaty with Japan, as the United States have done.

The Prime Minister: We have not gone back on anything we have said before as to our position in regard to aggression or in regard to China, but there is nothing which is contained in any obligation we have undertaken which obliges us to denounce the trade treaty with Japan. Once again the hon. Member demands that we should denounce this trade treaty. If I say, "No, I will not give him that assurance," it may seem that I am determined that the trade treaty shall not be denounced. Do not let anybody put that interpretation upon my words, but do not let us confuse a denunciation of this treaty with the actual operation of the denunciation. Twelve months' notice has to be given by us, so that 12 months will have to elapse before any active operative effect could follow from such a denunciation. I am not saying that that is any reason why we should not denounce, but I am merely saying that no immediate effect would be produced. There is another point. The Treaty has been acceeded to by some of the Dominions, and any denunciation of the treaty would have considerable repercussions in the Dominions. It would really be outrageous on our part to shut our eyes to the effect it might have and do anything about denunciation without having first


obtained the full confirmation and agreement of the Dominions concerned in the action we propose to take.
We have been compelled by force of circumstances to undertake some very heavy liabilities and commitments in Europe. The effect of those commitments is that, if certain things were to happen, this country would have to go to war. It would be possible to undertake the same commitments in the Far East. I do not want to do that. This is a country whose resources it is very difficult to measure or to put a limit to. It is a rich country, a country inhabited by people of a determined and resolute spirit. But there are limits to what it would be prudent to undertake, and however much, therefore, our feelings may be exacerbated by things that are happening in the Far East—I can assure hon. Members that I fully share the most violent feelings that anyone could have on the subject; it makes my blood boil to hear and to read of some of the things that have been happening there—however much those emotions have been aroused in us, let us not forget the liabilities that we have already assumed or the position of our fellow-countrymen and women who are already on the spot.
I do not think there is anything more that I can usefully say this morning. I have tried to give the House some sort of indication of the balance of considerations that we have to take account of in the Far East. We shall endeavour, in continuing the negotiations, to preserve to the utmost extent the principles which have hitherto governed our conduct there. We shall preserve to the utmost possible extent the interests and the fortunes of British subjects there. We shall endeavour to show patience and to exercise a reasonable moderation, recognising that behind all these outrageous things there may be some genuine suspicion on the part of the Japanese in China about our treatment of them. Above all, let us not forget that there may be even graver and nearer problems to be considered in the course of the next few months. We must conserve our forces to meet any emergency that might arise.

12.59 P.m.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: Having had a good deal to do with the Japanese during the last 40 years, particularly during two of their wars, I

venture to address a few remarks to the House about the foreign situation in the Far East. In another place last night the Foreign Secretary said something to this effect, that it was for every responsible person to take a long view and look forward to the goal that we are striving to attain. I, therefore, intend to choose my words very carefully. I welcomed on Monday night the firm declaration that the Prime Minister made as to the policy that the Government intended to adopt in the Far East, and to the calm, statesmanlike statement he has just made as to the conflicting difficulties before him. I know so well from my long association with the Japanese that irresolution and weakness are bound to lead to further acts of aggression and may well bring about a situation so intolerable, as to make it impossible for our forces in the East not to use arms to defend our nationals. I submit that, if stronger action had been taken in the past, the risks that are now being run would never have arisen. I will give examples. After the Japanese, despite the protests of the authorities in the International Settlement, had made a victory march through the International Settlement—and British barbed wire was taken down to enable them to pass—they declared that they intended to march through the French Concession. When they found barbed wire, armoured cars and machine guns blocking the way, although they had actually announced the route that they proposed to take, they pretended that they never intended to enter the Concession.
Again, a year or so ago the Japanese military authorities declared that they intended to arrest a Chinaman in the International Settlement. Brigadier Hop-wood, in command of the British troops, who had to make up his mind in a moment, said, "If you do so you will have to fight." The Japanese military authorities declared that there was some misunderstanding and nothing further was heard of' it. It is no secret in the Navy that young commanding officers on detached service with a full knowledge that their Admiral would back them up, have taken strong action which has brought the Japanese to their senses on many occasions. It is also well known in the Navy that the desire—a very natural one, in view of the situation at home—of the


Government to have no untoward incidents in the Far East has hampered naval and military commanding officers, and not only hampered them and put them in humiliating positions, but made it very difficult for them to deal with the arrogant, ambitious military leaders who seem to be acting absolutely independently of the Government in Japan. I know the Japanese so well; they will not stand up to a firm front.
Everyone who has spoken in the House about the indignities and insults that we are suffering from feels the same about it. It is almost impossible to speak temperately and calmly about the arrest of Colonel Spear, the stripping of men and women at Tientsin and the insolent behaviour of the Japanese generals at Tientsin in refusing to receive the British general commanding our troops in China. We are told that the aggressive demonstrations against us in China are organised by the military authorities, but the Japanese Government cannot escape responsibility for similar demonstrations in Tokyo. How can one expect to get any satisfaction from a government so lost to decency that it organises demonstrations outside the British Embassy while these talks are taking place?
In the East, loss of face is a very serious matter, and the fact that these dreadful things have happened has lowered our prestige. That prestige could be speedily restored if we took the right course now. The Foreign Secretary said last night that we cannot be the policeman in the Far East. That is true, but there are sufficient ships in the Far East to send some to every place where our trade is threatened. If the admiral on the spot were given a free hand, I am confident that the British Navy by showing a bold front, would be able to give protection to our trade. But we want something more than that. We want some tremendous international movement in the East to show the Japanese that Europeans will not tolerate this sort of treatment. We are not the only policemen; after all, France and the United States are just as much interested as we are in the preservation of the Nine-Power Treaty.
I do not think it is out of place for me to remind the House that before we went to the Washington Conference in 1922, we scrapped a fleet of capital ships—I think

15 in number and several cruisers —which was more powerful than the whole fleet of the Japanese Navy. That was not taken into account when we went to Washington. There again, in order to meet the Americans' desire for parity, we agreed to scrap a further number of powerful ships. This entailed allowing Japan to possess a fleet of battleships and aircraft carriers equal to three-fifths of the Navy of the whole British Empire—an utterly disproportionate ratio, having regard to the strength of our respective Fleets when the War ended, and their relative responsibilities. Again, in 1931, in order to meet the desire of the Americans for all-round parity, we had to agree to a ratio of five to three in every category of the Naval service. Hon. Members opposite have traced the present troubles back to eight years ago, but I would go back a year or two earlier than that, because our action at that time, to which I have referred, encouraged Japan to realise that if she waited she could eventually carry out the 21 points that she attempted to force on China in 1915.

Mr. Alexander: I apologise for interrupting the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I would remind him that the reception of the Japanese delegation to the London Naval Conference when it returned to Tokyo was such as led one to believe that the whole military class thought that the delegation had gone too far in meeting the demands we then made.

Sir R. Keyes: That only shows how necessary it is now to make them realise their position in the world. In 1931, to hasten the parity which America demanded, we agreed to scrap five great powerful ships without any corresponding sacrifice on Japan's part. I know that our delegates at the Conference were deeply concerned about that, and this was pointed out to the United States delegates. I know that the general trend of the arguments which they used were that if there was trouble in the Far East, there would be a united fleet there to meet aggression. I hope that the American isolationists will not succeed in preventing the United States from taking a firm and strong hand in upholding the Nine-Power Treaty. President Roosevelt, who has a great deal of difficulty in his country, has just made the courageous announcement that America will denounce the American-


Japanese Treaty of 1911. He has given a lead in taking retaliatory action against the Japanese because of their maltreatment of American nationals. After listening to the Prime Minister's speech, I appreciate the difficulties of the Government. I know that it may not be convenient, for various reasons, to follow the example which President Roosevelt has given at once, but there are a number of ways in which we could put pressure on Japan and make her realise that she will be an outcast if she pursues her present course.
I know the Japanese very well, and I have had many friends among them. When they were seeking our friendship, when they were our allies, they strove to live up to our standards, and we of another generation, who had friends among the Japanese soldiers, sailors and statesmen of those days, and had a sincere admiration for their bravery and knightly qualities, are shocked at the depths to which their successors have fallen in following the precepts of their Nazi friends. But knowing them as I do, I am absolutely confident that if the Government makes it clear beyond a shadow of doubt—as I think the Prime Minister has done to-day-—that we can and will take the strongest retaliatory measures, Japan will not dare to pursue her present policy. She must know that she will get no help from the Axis Powers; she can get no help from them. Japan must know that Germany will suffer a crushing defeat in the end, if she is rash enough to force a war on the British Empire—rearmed, united and determined as it is now, and in alliance with France, Poland, Turkey, Rumania, and the other nations which have joined the Peace Front, to resist further aggression—she cannot expect to survive. Japan should be left in no doubt that if she links her fate and future with that of the Axis Powers, she will suffer the same fate as Germany suffered at the conclusion of the Great War.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Mander: Having listened to the last two speakers on the opposite side of the House, I must say that of the two speeches I very much preferred that of the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes). It was like an invigorating breath of sea air, and I believe that there in what the hon. and gallant Member said, we heard the true voice of England in this matter of our

attitude towards the Japanese. At the same time, I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister, as a result of this sitting of Parliament to-day and this Debate, and the events of the last week or two, has been stiffened a good deal in his attitude. I venture to hope that he will remain up to that standard during the Recess. The Prime Minister said there had been no change of any kind, to speak of, since the Debate on Monday. But there ought to have been. If the Japanese were carrying out the terms of the agreement, there ought to have been a cessation of the outrages against British subjects in different parts of the Far East. There has not been a such a cessation, and I would like to know when the Government think the Japanese will begin to carry out their side of the Tokyo agreement.
I am glad to associate myself with the tribute paid by the Prime Minister to the British Ambassador in Tokyo. I am sure he is doing his very best. At the same time I would like to join with that a tribute to the British Ambassador in China for the admirable and equally important work which he is doing. I must say that this Agreement, when first put through, seemed to me a typical appeasement effort and quite inconsistent with the resolute policy which we hope the Government are now pursuing in the matter of a Peace Front. One has to think of the background. There was the old situation of sacrificing the victim and rewarding the aggressor. What is important is the effect of this agreement and these negotiations on various other powerful countries and in particular Russia, the United States and Germany. When the Prime Minister says that we have to think of the difficulties in the Far East, we have also to bear in mind the fact that by appearing to weaken there, by appearing to retreat before Japanese aggression or violence, we may be doing ourselves immense harm in Europe. We may be making our friends in Russia and in the United States feel that we cannot be relied upon to stand firm anywhere if we are not prepared to put up a bold face before the Japanese. We may be encouraging Hitler to think—and no one knows what he really does think—that if we are not prepared to take a firm line with the Japanese, we are not likely to do so in the case of Danzig or Poland or anywhere in Europe. That is why the whole conception of peace hangs together.
If this agreement were interpreted in its worst form we should indeed have no moral basis for our action. The League of Nations Resolution would have been abandoned as well as the principles of the Nine-Power Pact. The Prime Minister said that when you go into negotiations you cannot start by laying down certain things which you will or will not do. In a sense there is something in that view, but surely when we enter into negotiations with the Japanese, we ought to make it clear beforehand that we are not going to abandon or even discuss acting in contravention of the League of Nations Resolution which binds us to take no action to weaken Chinese resistance in any way. Surely we should make it clear that we are going to act in accordance with the principles of the Nine-Power Pact. Surely we ought to take a clear stand from the beginning, so that there will be no misunderstanding in the mind of the Japanese Government.
It seems to me that the object of this agreement was to make the Japanese think that we were going to do something which we never had any intention of doing, to make them think that we might be persuaded to go a long way in meeting their demands and abandoning the Chinese. Of course, I do not think there is any intention of doing that. The Government were trying, as usual, to buy a little delay, but the result will simply be that the Japanese, when they realise that we are not going to do what they thought, will be more exasperated than ever and we shall have still greater trouble in the future. I would call the Under-Secretary's attention to the interpretation which has been put upon this Agreement by the Japanese Prime Minister, Baron Hiranuma. He gave an interview to the Press on 23rd July. This interview has been stated in certain quarters to have been inaccurate, but we know that when statesmen become embarrassed it is their habitual practice to blame the Press. I see no reason at all why the journalists in Tokyo should not have accurately reported what the Prime Minister said and he was reported to have said:
The Anglo-Japanese Conference in Tokyo has passed its crisis, with the settlement of general questions forming the background of the Tientsin situation. The basic principle evolved as a result of this settlement is applicable to the whole of China and is not

limited to Tientsin. This point ought to be clear to Great Britain … Such British rights and interests may be recognised if only Great Britain will recognise the relations of mutual aid and interdependence between Japan, Manchukuo and China. Great Britain will not assist General Chiang Kai-Shek's regime by granting it credits, or otherwise.
That is the Japanese Prime Minister's statement of what he understands the agreement to be. How can the Undersecretary account for such an extraordinary result of these negotiations, as a misunderstanding of that kind? The statement also contains the following: —
 If Great Britain refrains from granting credits to General Chiang Kai-Shek's regime, that regime will be deprived of the wherewithal for financing purchases of munitions through dealers willing to supply them.
That shows where we have got to and the Prime Minister's statement today, is wholly inconsistent with that statement by the Japanese Prime Minister. Obviously, no permanent good is likely to result from the negotiations which are now going on. In the last sentence of the terms of this Tokyo agreement there is this statement:
 His Majesty's Government … will take this opportunity to confirm their policy in this respect by making it plain to British authorities and British nationals in China that they should refrain from such acts and measures.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what instructions have been sent as a result of this agreement to British authorities in China? We are in honour bound to send instructions if they have been agreed upon. It seems to me that if a policy of this kind is followed out it is bound, in the long run, to lead to the abandonment of British interests in the Far East. If we are willing to give way a little here and a little there, the Japanese will take advantage of the fact and press us further and more strongly until there is no alternative to clearing out of the Far East altogether. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth who well understands the Japanese, was right in saying that we have to stand up to them and make it clear that we are not going to allow such a thing to happen.
There are all sorts of things, without any question of military action at all, that could be done. The United States have acted with splendid firmness in protest, I imagine, against the pusillanimity of the British Government. The Prime


Minister said that, after all, 12 months' notice would have to be given to abrogate our trade treaty with Japan and that that was a long time before anything could be done. It seems to be a very excellent reason for giving notice at once, so that the time would start to run from now. I venture to say that the sort of things that we ought to do, and could well do, to help China would be concerned with the question of supporting the currency, the question of credits for the purchase of arms and goods for China and other material assistance, the refusal of imports from Japan, the refusal of access to British harbours for Japanese shipping, and the withdrawal of our Ambassador from Tokyo. They are all actions which could be taken in their different order and as seemed most appropriate and that would make Japan feel that we are not going to tolerate the sort of actions which she is carrying out. I would like to refer the the question which I put to-day dealing with this very matter, as follows:
 To ask the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the fact that during 1938 the United States, British, French, and Dutch empires provided Japan with 86 per cent, of her essential war materials, including 77 per cent, of her aircraft, 99 per cent, of her oil and petroleum, and more than 90 per cent, of all her metals and oils, he will consider the advisability of entering into consultations with the Governments of the United States, France, and Holland, with a view to considering the possibility of taking action to discontinue the encouragement of aggression in this manner.
It seems to me that that is reasonably firm action which the Government might well take. Only by firmness in the East can we make it clear that we are going to be firm in the West, and I hope the Government by their action in connection with Japan will show from now onwards that we do intend to be absolutely firm.
Now I want to make a brief reference to the question of refugees, as I see the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in his place. I venture to hope that he will be able to say something in this Debate about the work of the inter-Governmental Committee which has recently been considering this problem from a new angle, and that he will be able to report to us some satisfactory progress. With regard to the Czech refugees, we first of all gave them a gift of £4,000,000, and we undertook to guarantee a loan of £8,000,000. As a result of what happened in Czecho-Slovakia, that loan has never had to be proceeded

with, so that we really saved a very considerable sum of money there because the loan could not be regarded as a safe investment; and I urge upon the Government to consider most carefully whether, in view of the fact that the sum available, the £4,000,000, will probably not be enough, and in view of the immense moral commitments that we have to these refugees from Czecho-Slovakia, who have been persecuted day after day—something like 1,000,000 Czechs have been sent to Germany, and large numbers of Germans are being colonised in Czechoslovakia at the present time—we cannot do more. It might be that a further £2,000,000 would cover all our commitments and all the very special obligations which we have. We all know the sacrifices which Czecho-Slovakia was called upon to make in the interests of this country, as it was put by the Prime Minister last year. I understand that there are 2,000 of these Czech refugees in Poland at the present time, and that there is some danger that some of them might be driven back into Germany, and I venture to make an appeal to our good friends, the Polish Government, to look with the utmost sympathy upon the situation of these unfortunate people, to do everything they can to prevent such a catastrophe, and to facilitate either their settlement in Poland or their escape to some country where they will be treated with equal consideration.
I will conclude by referring to a point that I raised at question time to-day. In view of the uncertainty and anxiety concerning the formula defining indirect aggression in the Anglo-Soviet Pact, I submit that some public statement should be made so that public opinion can judge exactly where the relative merits of the position of the two Governments lie. I think the public interest demands it, and I believe that people would like to know and that it ought not to hinder the negotiations by our Government at all. Indeed, if their position is a wise and statesmanlike one, it can only invigorate and strengthen their attitude. The Prime Minister said that it was not usual to make such statements without the consent of the Government concerned, but it is very easy to consult the Russian Government. You are doing it every day, and I very much doubt whether the Russian Government would have any objection to publishing the formula. I strongly urge


on the right hon. Gentleman to consider seriously making this publication. Perhaps he will say in his reply whether he will confer with his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this point.

1.33 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: There are, in my opinion, certain factors which we want to take into consideration in connection with affairs in the Far East. As I see it, I must confess that the danger seems to be most immediate in Europe. It is more than doubtful tactics for us to allow potential aggressors to draw off our forces somewhere else before starting upon their aggression. We must, I consider, bear that in mind the whole time, however angry we may feel about the situation in the Far East. I hope the Government therefore will walk very warily. Secondly, as far as I know, the Japanese individual is normally a peace-loving individual. There is one caste in Japan, the Samurai caste, that is extremely warlike, and there is also one class in Japan, the officer class, which is likewise warlike, but the conscript soldiers are from the small peasants, who are, as far as I know, a peace-loving people, as are the normal Japanese business men, and, although I feel that we have to walk warily in the Far East at the present time, nevertheless we have also to walk firmly, because by weakening we only encourage those classes and castes in Japan which are in the ascendancy at the moment possibly, and quite probably, against the will of the majority of their own people.
How are we `trying to get our views across to the Japanese people? Are we taking any steps in Japan itself? That is a point to which the Government might well give attention. There are several English newspapers in Japan, but only one, a very small one, the "Kobe Chronicle," is owned by British capital. The others are owned either by Americans or by the Japanese themselves, and so the British point of view is not being fairly put to the Japanese The American point of view may reach them, but the Americans are rather apt to sling mud at the Japanese. They are responsible for most of the anti-Japanese propaganda in the world but do not really shoulder their share of the responsibilities. They are apt to preach at us too much. The Americans are very apt to consider themselves born

missionaries, though for the life of me I cannot discover what is their mission.
My hon and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) said we must make abundantly clear to the Japanese, as did other speakers, that we intend to be firm in the Far East. I quite agree, but unless we are going to back up those words with some action I do not see that they will be the slightest good whatever, and as I have already asked the Government to walk warily where we are concerned it seems rather difficult to say what our action should be. To my mind the answer is that there are several nations with unity of interests in the Far East. There are several nations therefore who should combine in a unity of purpose and, if they want to get that unity of purpose, they must put their forces under a unity of command.
I think the real answer in the Far East would be for the Government to do everything they can to get all the nations concerned in the Far East to put their forces under one command—that is to say the French, India, the Australians, the New Zealanders, and, if the Russians come in the Peace Front, then the Russians too; and of course ultimately, as we should hope, the Americans. In my opinion there is nothing which would be more likely to keep the peace in the Far East than if there were one Commander-in-Chief in charge of an allied force with power to station it or parts of it in the territory of any one of those allies. If that were accomplished I doubt whether there would be one Briton or other European stripped by Japanese soldiers. But beyond that point there is the matter of the Concessions. It may be an unpopular subject to raise just now, but when the atmosphere has returned to the normal calm, and nobody is threatening us, I hope the Government will review these isolated posts of ours throughout the Empire, which are extremely embarrassing to us from the military point of view, and which very often date from a past century and should have been revised long ago. Those Concessions will be no more popular to a strong Chinese Government which may win the war than they are to a strong Japanese Government.
I return now to Europe. Most of the debate has been centred on the Far East, but it is not easy to get into a foreign


affairs debate in this House, and there is a certain matter of great importance that I want to mention now, for very obvious reasons which the House will see, I hope, as I unfold my argument, and that is the course that events are going to take in Europe. Germany, as we know acts thus: a war of nerves, followed by a victory within their opponent's country, usually some demoralisation of them, and then the sudden swoop. Now we are faced with a desire on Germany's part to break Poland. We all talk of an August or September crisis. Well, Germany has by her actions mobilised the British Fleet, she has created a British militia, she has brought more troops under arms in Britain than at any time since the War, and she knows prefectly well that those troops will remain in arms and that the Fleet will remain mobilised during August and September. In other words, I consider that she is deliberately provoking a war of nerves during these two months, but it strikes me as being most unlikely, from the military point of view, that she would deliberately encourage us to arm to the teeth and mobilise to the teeth if she meant to strike during those two months.
She will, I think, quite probably gain her second point, that is to say, a victory within her opponent's territory or sphere of interest, during these two months. I am including Danzig as "within." She is practically in Danzig now. It is only a question of a change of title. After that there will come a time when she will have to make a sudden swoop, but she will not make that sudden swoop—will not, in my opinion, make the great supreme adventure, which might risk war with us, when we are fully mobilised and absolutely prepared to meet her. Hon. Members will see in a minute why I am saying all this. Germany knows perfectly well that although she can keep her troops under arms throughout the winter we cannot do so. All our civilian-soldiers will have to go back to their jobs sooner or later, unless we readjust our whole economy. So I feel that she will keep us on edge during August and September and probably mop up, or sop up, any of the fruits of victory which may fall into her lap on the way, such as Danzig; but if she is going to make the supreme adventure of an attack against Poland, which might bring in us against her, I consider she is much more likely to do so during the

winter, and probably the early winter, say, November, than she would be during August and September.

Mr. Alexander: I hope the hon. and gallant Member does not mean to give Germany the impression that no objection would be taken to the mopping up of Danzig.

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Of course I do not wish to give that impression. I am looking at it from a purely military point of view, and of course the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my feeling on the situation at Danzig matches his own. But supposing Germany gets Danzig and puts Poland in the position of having to attack Germany, Poland might find it difficult to do so. Then we come to the winter without a war having broken out. From every point of view if Germany is going to make the supreme adventure against Poland, knowing the risk she runs of bringing in us and France, a winter war would suit her every time. The gently rolling country of Poland would be frozen over crisp and hard, and that would be very suitable for the movement of Germany's mechanised forces, either from Germany itself or from East Prussia. She would be able to fight her local war against Poland, which she thinks she could win in a few weeks; but she fears our attacking either through France or through Russia, or with the Air Force, and in winter all air and sea-passages become far more difficult. It would be more difficult for us to bomb Germany in the winter than in the summer. It would be more difficult for us to send direct help to Poland by sea in the winter than in the summer, even if we had complete command of the sea. If we wish to attack Germany via France we should have to do so in the slush and mud of Flanders and in a French winter, and we should be acting against German troops snug and warm in their concrete fortifications. If we wanted to help via Russia we should have to send an expeditionary force, and that would be hazardous in the extreme, with soldiers going to their first campaign through the rigours of a Russian winter. In every way a sudden swoop on Poland would suit Germany more in the winter than in the summer.
Then there is the question of her ally, Italy. The last thing Italy wants is a war in Europe against France. It would be far more difficult for France to attack


Italy over the Alps, or for her aeroplanes to go over the Alps, in Winter. The one place where Italy might like to strike, in North Africa, the climate suits a campaign in winter far more than in summer. Therefore, I want to give this warning: "We may get through August and September; we may have our war of nerves; Germany may gain this or that or may not gain this or that, but no major war may have broken out. Then, at the end of that period, what will happen? Hitler will say: "There was nothing in it at all. You see I was a man of peace after all. Why did you not go on your summer holidays; what was all the silly fuss about? We in Britain will then start demobilising our Fleet and our troops, and so on, thinking that we have a peaceful winter ahead of us and that we have nothing more to fear.
The barometer will suddenly jump high, having been low for months. Hon. Members are aware that when the barometer goes up and down or vice versa if it is sudden it is an extremely dangerous sign. When we come back we shall be told, as some newspapers are already telling us, that it is high time that we got on to our own domestic concerns and had our General Election; that we got down to our usual dogfight and to our internal dissentions again.
I am saying this now because I hope that we shall not relax our vigilance even though we are getting near to the winter. I hope that we shall not judge the future weather by the temporary high reading of the barometer and that we shall remember that the sudden droppings and risings of a barometer nearly always tell of bad weather. I hope that we shall be extremely careful when we come to fighting each other over our own internal domestic politics, even in matters like a general election about which we are already talking as if taking place in the autumn or in November. We must be prepared to shelve our differences if necessary. We should bear in mind those military factors which, in my opinion, would give Germany the advantage every time in going to war in Poland in winter rather than in the summer months, and we must not think that, because August and September are over, we shall have no trouble in the winter and can therefore afford a general election which may well play into our enemy's hands.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member whether the united hand in the Far East—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): Mr. Morgan.

1.48 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: We have followed the very thoughtful speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Lt.-Col. Macnamara) with considerable interest and concern, and I am sure that many hon. Members, including some on this side of the House, will take into account some of the things he said. We have taken it far too much for granted that October and November would be a perfectly straightforward period, when we might concentrate on even an electoral campaign without undue anxiety. I am glad that he has put those contrary considerations before us.
In regard to the Far Eastern situation, I am not in the least anxious to be inquisitive about the actual day-to-day affairs out there. I have in a very vulnerable and responsible position relatives with whom I keep in contact. What I feel is that this thing is hitting back at us in an extraordinary way. The assumption in this House is that the German people rather like to see us in this position in the Far East, but actually the German people would like to see a firmer British stand in the Far East. It may suit German high policy to enjoy our predicament out there, but the German people are no more pro-Japanese than they are pro-Italian when it comes to their sense of the desirable alignments for themselves. Nevertheless we have to submit to the kind of thing that went over the radio over the whole German Reich the night before last. It was a poem, which read:
How pale the old chap went, that poor old Mr. John,
When sentries stood before the British Concession'.
He ground what teeth he had, and stripped right to the skin;
That wasn't nice for him—ha! ha!—in Tientsin.
The whole Empire is naked—nude, like poor old honest John.
He ceased to be a mighty dude, for he had nothing on.
Both big and little watched aglow this novel kind of nudist show;
What John exposed, to his distress, was not alone his nakedness. 
Oh, what a lot was lost to him—
Not only there in Tientsin!


That is how we were represented over the whole German Reich and Austrian radio on Wednesday night this week, and it illustrates the kind of backwash that we are getting from the Far Eastern situation.
In this problem we are only the junior partner. The senior partner is the United States of America, both actually and potentially. I was out there about three years ago and I went to Honolulu and down the west coast of America. One has also been out to Australia and New Zealand and one is aware that their preoccupation in foreign matters is with the Japanese problem. We made a fuss the other day about tinned salmon coming from Japan into this country. Actually, British Columbian salmon is all Japanese-caught, although it is put into tins in canneries in Columbia. The Japanese simply make a harvest of salmon there and ship the whole of their cash takings back to Japan. Then they begin drawing on the canneries for another season. When one goes to Honolulu one realises that, apart from the aerodromes, there is plenty of evidence of Japanese interest in the area. That is part of the preoccupation of the United States.
President Roosevelt felt so sure of his public opinion that he took a step which to us in such a situation would be a major step, namely, denounced the United States of America-Japan trade treaty. It was quite unexpected to us and I think it must have come as a kind of shock. It would in our case be represented as an emphatic declaration of policy on the part of the British Government and it would have gone from one end of the country and of the world to the other. President Roosevelt has to feel his way and handle his public opinion as tactfully as he can for all sorts of reasons. Yet he felt perfectly at liberty to make a definite declaration of the kind to which I have referred, and which cuts right across the commercial interests of America at the present moment. America is selling twice as much to Japan as she is importing from Japan. That kind of consideration we should have in mind before we came to such a decision, yet I take it that America has had the same fact well in mind, as we should. Nevertheless, America has taken a definite line and President Roosevelt has taken a drastic step. In spite of their isolationist attitude towards our affairs, action towards Japan

evidently meets with approval sufficiently widespread for such a statesman and politician as he is.
The point is this: In the statement which we had from the Prime Minister this morning it was apparent that there must have been a basis of interest between ourselves and the United States on this question. I hope that the Undersecretary will be able to indicate what some of those contacts have been. When the Prime Minister had made plain last week the formula on which the Tokyo discussions were proceeding every news agency in London was inundated with cable appointments from American newspapers the moment that declaration was made. They wanted to know exactly what it meant and how far we were breaking with our declared policy. They showed marked concern about our action. The Press of London that afternoon was simply alive with inquiries from America as to what the declaration meant. Not for many a day has America shown such an interest in our parliamentary activities as it showed on the day on which the Prime Minister made his declaration about the formula.
I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us a little more. Is there any reason why he should not tell us something of the occasions, times and actual volume of the direct contact that they have had with the United States officials on this question of the Far East? Has joint action been contemplated at any time? Was the Foreign Office aware that the American Government was about to declare the trade treaty with Japan null and void? Have we been in active association with the United States, or are we so anxious to save our face that we cannot bring ourselves to enter into discussions as a junior partner with the United States on this matter? Are we prepared to let the United States show a little more initiative in this matter than at the moment we are able to show? Our talk this morning has all been along the line that we are taking unilateral action. The Prime Minister discussed the whole matter as if we were taking our own line, without close association with the other major interests that are concerned.
We may deplore it, but I can certainly understand American reluctance to become involved in European matters. It is, however, the inverse that is operating now; we are reluctant to become involved


in Far Eastern matters because of our major pre-occupations here, while the United States are becoming more disposed to be pre-occupied and involved in the Far East. Their general official policy is concerned about their interests in the Pacific, and their relationship with China in particular. One feels that we may be reluctant to part with our national rights in this matter, that we are, perhaps, too conscious of our own particular status to do what was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara). When a certain impingement on American rights was threatened by the Japanese naval authorities, the American admiral told them that, wherever there was an American citizen, there they would meet the American Fleet, and no more was heard on that question. Further, we have little evidence that American citizens, of whom there are as many in China as there are British, are being subjected to the same kind of treatment as our people. Have the Japanese more respect for the American attitude in this matter? It may be that they have, as a result of certain considerations with which we ought to be more closely associated.
I hope the Under-Secretary will give us substantial evidence that we are in the very closest contact with the United States—that we are not merely exchanging information, that we are not merely intimating what we are doing, but that we are actually surrendering to the United States a certain amount of the initiative in this matter, and allowing them to exercise their evident preponderating influence over Japan, the result of which is seen in the respect that is shown to American citizens as against the disrespect that is shown to our citizens. I hope that this aspect of the matter will be made clear to us. because I feel concerned about it. The Prime Minister indicated, quite rightly, that we have to be careful about our action in case we involve the personal position of British residents out there in isolated circumstances, but if we can secure their protection by joint action with the United States, nothing ought to be allowed to stand in the way, and we ought to be prepared to accept measures leading to joint action of the kind suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. I feel that the people of this nation would probably regard it as

a move in the right direction if they found an American admiral at the head of our affairs in the Far East, coordinating our military forces. I personally should have no objection to that, but should regard it as a first-class move, and as a portent of greater moves of the same kind in the future; and I hope the suggestion will be put forward that we are ready at this stage to use all our British forces in some sort of joint action under American initiative.
Further, why should we not suggest, in the early autumn if you like, a joint conference of our Dominion interests— Canada, Australia, New Zealand—with the United States, in the United States, on the Japanese question? If such a conference were announced at this time, the Japanese would call a halt straight away. Their diplomatic activities would be at once diverted into new channels; they would at once have a major preoccupation looming over the horizon, and would have to take first-class note of such a gesture, seeing that our Dominion interests are so vitally concerned with Far Eastern affairs. I lived for a fair time in New Zealand on two occasions, and I know Australia particularly. In Australia they are almost as unconcerned about European matters as the American citizen himself is, but they are fully alive to the threat that would arise from a Japanese advance in Malaya and elsewhere, and any move to bring Dominion, American and British interests together at some point in the United States would do more than anything else to check this present aggravation of our special interests in China. I hope that in any case the Under-Secretary will let us know how close the contacts have been in all this business with the United States, and whether any representations have been made from the United States in which we have not co-operated or assented. Have there been any proposals from them which we have not felt in a position to accept or take advantage of? If so, it surely should be known to this House, because some of us may feel that we have a right to be interested in such offers from the United States.

2.3 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Cox: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara) gave us an interesting and highly speculative speech, in


which he dealt with all sorts of vague possibilities and drew a picture of what might possibly happen to us in the future. I do not think that any good purpose would be served by further discussion on those lines, because it is most undesirable that rumours and speculative possibilities of this kind should be circulated in all directions. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), who also made an interesting though somewhat academic speech, was more moderate in his tone than usual. He made a somewhat screened attack on the Government and the Prime Minister. He showed that he had very little confidence in any action which the British Government had taken in the Far East, and that he could put no trust in the Prime Minister. I hope that during the holidays he will consult some of his friends and constituents in the country. Then I think he will come to the conclusion that the people of these islands have been profoundly impressed by the Prime Minister's directness of purpose and freshness of outlook. They know very well that he possesses the two great qualities of courage and confidence which made his distinguished father, Joseph Chamberlain, so eminent. It is, of course, true that such a personality naturally attracts both enthusiastic support and determined hostility, and, as I have said, if the hon Member consults the great masses of the British people, he will find that they are included in the former category.

Mr. Alexander: As at Brecon.

Mr. Cox: The people of Brecon are not entitled to speak for the 48,000,000 people of this islands. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara), I wish to deal with one or two problems in regard to the European situation, because there are graver and nearer questions which affect us at these times. In the Debate on foreign affairs on Monday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) made an appeal to the Government, and asked the Prime Minister if the Government would plainly declare that the restoration of Czech independence is a firmly settled objective of British policy. Surely that is an irresponsible and childish suggestion. The only way in which the status quo in Central Europe can be altered to-day is by the use of military

force, and I am sure the people of the country are not prepared to support any action of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
In a previous foreign affairs Debate the Leader of the Opposition raised a very important question. He attempted to draw some distinction between British and world interests. He tried to show that the Government were carrying out a narrow and imperialistic policy which was hostile to the major interests of other States. That is quite untrue. Anyone who has made a careful study of British history, or read the Crowe Memorandum, knows that British interests are the same as those of a majority of other States. That has always been a cardinal principle of British policy, which has never been hostile to the vital interests of a majority of other States. It is quite true that the possession of preponderant sea power might cause apprehension among some other nations, but the danger of a world coalition of foreign powers against us is most unlikely, as the policy of this country is essentially pacific, and does not threaten the national independence of any State, but is rather the enemy of those who have adopted any such policy. The guarantees recently given to Greece, Rumania, Poland and Turkey show a wish on our part to protect weaker communities which are in danger, in support of the general policy of the preservation of national independence. At the same time, we can incur no enmity from other powers, because we have always desired the largest measure of general freedom of commerce. No one here wants a closed economic system which would give us advantages at the expense of others. No one can point to any action taken by any British Government during the last 20 years which might show that our interests had not harmonised with the general desire of the majority of the nations. Can the same be said of Germany to-day? Lord Rennell, speaking in another place not long ago, said that there seemed to be some doubt whether Germany was de-siring to destroy and supplant the British Empire.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that reference to speeches in another place, except those by Members of the Government, being statements on behalf of the Government, are out of Order.

Mr. Cox: I was only giving a general resume of the speech, but I will not continue.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is exactly what the hon. Member must not do.

Mr. Cox: I will not continue on that point, Sir, except to say that there seems to be some accumulative historical evidence which shows that these ideas may have been Germany's mind before the War, and now the world sees a vast Teutonic War machine growing in strength, directed at, and successfully crushing, one small State after another. Then there is the usual long list of primitive excuses and explanations. Now that Germany seems to have abandoned her own principle of national self-determination, the smaller neighbouring States are naturally alarmed. It seems, from statements made in the controlled newspapers of Germany, that Germany to-day has unlimited plans of expansion. That view was recently put forward in the German Press. Now I wish to make one or two observations on this question of general interest: encirclement. The German newspapers are continually complaining of the so-called policy of the democratic powers in regard to encirclement. But which State was it that encircled Austria and Czechoslovakia, and destroyed their freedom? Which State is trying to encircle Poland, Roumania and Yugo-Slavia? Which State employs officers skilled in the art of encircling other countries and then dominating them by force?.
The German Propaganda Ministry says that the democracies are degenerate and decadent. If that is so, why should anyone fear their so-called attempts to encircle other States? Why should such desperate attempts be made to prevent the German people from knowing what is going on in England and France? The German people is however naturally anxious about the possible mismanagement of its vital interests. No one here wants to prevent Germany from holding her rightful position as a great modern European power. It would be wrong to attempt to deprive her of access to raw materials and other supplies, or to try to harm her commercial ambitions. It may be that Germany is only ambitious to spread German culture by advancing Teutonic ideals in many quarters of the globe where her language is understood.
On the other hand, there may be this fanatical desire for world domination.
In any case, it would be folly to run any further grave risks by failing to form a grand alliance of all the Powers which respect national independence and desire peace and to make that alliance too strong to give Germany a chance of succeeding in any war. That is a reasonable policy which would have the support of the great majority of the people of these islands. This alliance must make it clear that it is prepared to defend its existence and freedom by warlike measures if there is no effective alternative. The newspaper articles written by German journalists on the subject of encirclement are not particularly impressive. Not only do they make use of some scarcely complimentary appellations, referring to hon. Members here as "unctuous hypocrites sitting on the banks of the Thames," but they do not seem to realise that the system of mutual security guarantees aims not at encircling particular countries, but only at encircling aggressors. The German Chancellor had only to agree to President Roosevelt's proposals to show that he had no further thoughts of aggression. The fable that the so-called pluto-democracies can be blackmailed into inactive silence is equally false and dangerous. It is one which may be bitterly repented. It may be the direct cause of a terrible conflict which will undoubtedly lead to the utter ruin of those who manufactured this untruth.
I hope that the Government will push ahead with the Peace Front alliances and continue in their efforts to maintain peace. The spirit of restraint and accommodation recently shown by the whole Kingdom has given this country the leadership of the nations. It is as well that the people of these islands should know that the founders of dictatorships are always men of criminal determination and ruthless energy, who will stay their hands at no crime however enormous. Therefore, I hope that we shall show an equally inflexible determination not to recoil before any of the heavy duties imposed on us by the will to protect the destinies of these islands.

REFUGEES.

2.17 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I want to draw attention to a question closely associated with our foreign policy because it concerns


the victims of that policy or, shall we say, our lack of policy and our desertion of the principle of collective security. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said the other day that the attitude of the Government was equivalent to saying "take your gas masks and go away with them" I would like to suggest that we should take something else besides our gas masks, and that is the thought that while we are enjoying ourselves by sea or mountain there are hundreds of thousands of men and women who are wandering about in the utmost destitution, many of them hiding by day many of them already in the hands of the Gestapo and being beaten up daily in concentration camps and prisons. Our degree of responsibility for their misfortunes varies greatly. For some groups there is a very direct responsibility, and I want particularly to draw the attention of the House to that group of these unhappy people for whom our responsibility is undeniable. I refer to the refugees from Czecho-Slovakia. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) has said something about it. No one is surely going to deny our responsibility. Only last October the Prime Minister said that His Majesty's Government were profoundly conscious of the great public spirit which the Czecho-Slovakian Government had shown, and he expressed the hope that the guaranteed loan of £30,000,000 would meet with a sypathetic and even generous response.
What has been the measure of our acknowledgment of the debt to the people of Czecho-Slovakia? In October the Government promised a guaranteed loan of £10,000,000, described as an advance to meet urgent needs, and quite obviously intending larger sums later. When it became clear that the new Czech Government was quite unable to resist the Berlin Government, His Majesty's Government rightly became anxious to safeguard anything which might be given to Czechoslovakia, and after long negotiations, occupying four months, the promise of a loan was transmuted into an arrangement by which £4,000,000 was to be a free gift earmarked for the use of refugees outside Czecho - Slovakia. The remaining £6,000,000 was to remain earmarked for the use of refugees who had settled inside Czecho-Slovakia, the understanding being that it was likely to be used in the meantime for such purposes as the construction

of roads. The £8,000,000 loan and the £4,000,000 gift were to be for the benefit of refugees.
But by the time that arrangement was made it had become clear that it was merely a matter of months before the mutilated State would pass under the control of Berlin. Only six weeks after the arrangement had been made Hitler's army marched into Prague and there were thousands of people whose only offence was that they had stood up to Henlein. Obviously they could not safely remain within what was called the Protectorate. Several thousands of those people have already crossed the Polish Frontier and are living in Poland, to the great annoyance of the Poles, under threat of being sent back. Some are political refugees and some are Jews. What is to become of these people? It has become clear that the £4,000,000 grant is not sufficient to cover the whole number. The Committee responsible for Czecho-Slovakian refugees in this country has already budgeted for as many as it can take. Other countries which have taken Czecho-Slovakian refugees have already received some of that £4,000,000. What is to become of those who cannot be covered by that £4,000,000?
Let us remember that although our Government has no doubt been relieved of its promise to give the loan because there has ceased to be a Czecho-Slovakia and the new Protectorate is no place for sending the refugees, did it absolve them of the moral responsibility for the people to whom the original loan was to be made? We heard some time ago that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's intention to repay to the Treasury the £6,000,000, not merely the portion which remained unspent, but the amount which had been spent but which he could recover from Czech assets frozen in London. It appears that the Government intend to make a nice little economy out of the disaster which happened last March, a disaster for which we are not entirely exempt from responsibility, because we guaranteed the frontiers. We were unable to implement that guarantee, and because of that the situation of these new refugees arose—those who could no longer remain in a Bohemia which had. become part of the Reich.
Are the Government going to say, when the Home Office is asked for visas for them or for facilities to get them to


Sweden or Canada or wherever it may be, "Very sorry, but we have spent as much as we can afford "? If the Government did that, would it not be exactly like this: It would be as though a rich man had been driving along in a powerful car and to prevent himself falling down a precipice had accidentally run into a crowd of people and killed some and mutilated others. In the first flush of compunction he takes out a £5 note and hands it to the ambulance driver, and says, "Please take these people to the hospital." The ambulance driver returns and says that he wants some more money in order to take the remainder of the mutilated people, but the rich man shrugs his shoulders and replies, "I am sorry I cannot afford any more." That is what we are doing with these refugees in Poland and Bohemia, who would be in safety if it had not been for the action we took over Czecho-Slovakia last year. Who would not be fighting for a country in which he believed rather than hiding in drains and forests, a skulking fugitive without a penny in his pocket, or being beaten up every day by steel rods, rubber truncheons and sandbags in concentration camps? Consider the position of these people. Let us ask ourselves whether we have not a responsibility for them? Can we go away on holiday saying that we have been very generous to Czechoslovakia, and that if a few more refugees are beaten up in concentration camps, we shall be very sorry, but we cannot help it, and cannot afford any more? I cannot believe that the Government and the British people can be happy about it.
I must not enlarge here on all the many aspects of the refugee question, as I would like to do. I will now only mention the question of refugees from Spain. There too we have a special responsibility, though rather different from and not so great perhaps as our responsibility for Czecho-Slovak refugees. Who can deny that the downfall and destruction of the Republican Army was due to our policy which held from them arms for their own defence? After the downfall of Spain nearly 250,000 of these refugees were received in camps in France, where the majority of them are still being retained at great expense to the French. We have made a certain monetary contribution which is trivial compared with

what the French are spending. Would it not be a very good thing for ourselves if we did not allow all these men to rot in camps and in prisons. Who are they? They are men who, for 2½; years, have borne the burden of modern warfare. They have had experience of all forms of bombing, air-raid precautions and the rest. They are rotting in these camps in France. What a waste of magnificent material. Six thousand of these men had voluntarily joined the International Brigade because of their hatred of Fascism. If we should have to go to war and fight against Fascism, why should we neglect this reserve of extraordinarily valuable material? We are told that these men in French camps, because of the harsh way in which they were treated when they came over, are not willing to enlist in the French Army. They are being wasted. There are among them surgeons with remarkable experiences of war casualties, and yet all that valuable material is rotting in these French camps.
It is rather hard on the Noble Lord who is to reply to the debate to-day. So far I have dwelt only on the two aspects of the refugee question that least concern him personally. We do not hold him responsible for the treatment of Czechoslovak refugees or Spanish refugees because his particular charge is that of the International Committee, which met in London the other day and which is to meet by deputy in Washington. We were very glad to hear the Prime Minister announce in this House the other day that the Government are contemplating departing from their original attitude that there could be no Government money devoted to refugees, and that they are willing, if other States also agree, to take part in raising the international finances by which alone the problem of the refugees can be settled on a large scale and in a satisfactory manner. We shall watch with interest the course of these negotiations. When the Noble Lord and his colleagues really approach this problem, I hope that they will remember that there are those two particular groups of refugees, perhaps those with the finest qualities of the whole lot, who also have a claim on international funds, but who in the meantime are the responsibility of those countries which put them into their present flight—we ourselves and our ally France.

Colonel Wedgwood: The most unfortunate thing in the speech of the Prime Minister to-day was his evident reluctance to take economic sanctions against Japan. I would like to put that matter in its true light. He said that we cannot denounce our Treaty with Japan under 12 months' notice. He knows, and the House should know, that this Government at Geneva last November resolved that any country could take action against Japan economically under Article 16, either individually or collectively. So that we are in a position to bring exactly those economic sanctions against Japan. During his speech I had a slight passage of arms with him over the question of the four Chinese accused in Tientsin. He thought that it was a judicial matter and I thought that it was a matter of the honour of this country. If we refused originally, as we did, to hand over those four Chinese, to Japanese justice, it would be infamous to hand them over now because and after Tientsin has been blockaded and our nationals have been scandalously treated. It might have been all right at first, but to do it in order to save ourselves at their expense would, I think, leave a black mark on history which it would be very difficult to wipe out.
This question of honour comes up again when we deal with the Czech refugees. The calls of humanity are equally applicable, I suppose, to all refugees, and indeed to all the other sufferers from the present world war which is going on today, but so far as the Czechs are concerned this Government have a definite responsibility for their condition. I am not going into the general question but intend to give three examples of what is happening to these Czech refugees at the present time. I have heard terrible accounts about 2,000 refugees who fled over the frontier and are still in Poland— swimming over the Oder or climbing over the mountains. I have accounts of what is happening to the refugees in Kakowitz. The position is lightened to some extent by the magnificent conduct of our officials. If it had not been for Claire Hollingworth, of the Friends' organisation, and our Vice-consuls at Kakowitz and Cracow, the conditions would have been far worse. There, at least, we can say that we have realised something of our real responsibilities and are carrying out the decent traditions of the past. There are about

2,000 of these refugees still there. They are being kept alive by contributions from the local Socialists and the local Jews. They are all waiting for permission to come to England. They are under the constant threat of being turned by the Polish Government back under the heel of the Gestapo. Obviously, something must be done for these people without waiting for the next two or three months before the House meets again, otherwise they will starve to death.
There is the case of those who fled in a boat which was burned in the Meditterranean. Desperate people got hold of a ship where they were robbed and housed like cattle. The ship was burnt and they were taken off by the Italians and dumped in Rhodes. There are about 900 men, women and children. There is a very small Jewish population in Rhodes but they cannot keep them alive and the Italian Government is doing nothing for them. These people are actually starving to-day. The accounts that I have had from Rhodes are that people are selling their clothes off their backs in order to buy a little rice. Their future is indeed black. These are all Czech Jew refugees. We cannot allow these people to die of hunger and starvation in Rhodes, when we could let them into Palestine or Cyprus into a concentration camp. They have been there over a month, and it is time that the conscience of Great Britain got to work and we did our duty in saving these people.
The worst case is that of the ship now rotting at Beyrout. There are 650 people on board that ship. I asked a question about it the other day, because it was said that plague had broken out. I was told that it was not plague but that the ship had been deratised, whatever that means, and the people taken ashore. I am told that the rats, over 1,000 of them, were lying on the decks, rotting. The rats had been killed but their carcases were there and still capable of spreading plague. These people left a port on the Danube early in April, and it is now July. Their ship is not an ordinary cargo ship but a derelict, which was fitted out, without any santitary accommodation whatever, without any fresh water for washing, the sort of place in which no civilised Government would ever put prisoners. This ship has been carrying these miserable wretches about for three months.
All they want is to be allowed to go to Palestine. Are we to be held guilty of the murder by disease and slow starvation of these 650 people, because the British Government, responsible for their condition, will not permit them to go to the only place where there is anybody who will look after them and keep them alive?
Some hon. Members may recollect the account from the memoirs of Baron de Marbot, where he tells of French prisoners of war who were starved to death on the hulks lying outside Genoa, when Genoa was beseiged by France. He tells how their howls were heard by day and night, how they fought for the few loaves of bread thrown to them, how the stronger killed the weaker and how, finally, when Genoa was taken, the French took off a few living skeletons who were left alive out of 2,000 prisoners of war. It is one of the most horrible passages of history. To-day we are enacting the same thing in connection with people who are not prisoners of war but whose plight has been brought about by our action, and we are not even allowing these wretches to escape from their prison house to the only land where they could get the care, attention and doctoring they so badly need.
I plead with the Noble Lord. I asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to be here to-day, but he has not come. I beg the Noble Lord to deal with this problem, whether it be by allowing these poor people into Palestine or allowing them into Cyprus. Do not let us leave them forever to the French, or to the alternative of starvation.

2.42 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Earl Winter-ton): I have not been left much time in which to reply—I make no complaint— on the important refugee questions that have been raised, and I must be as brief as I can because I understand it is desired to deal with another subject. The question of refugees is very vast and complicated, and it is somewhat difficult to deal with it in tabloid form. May I preface my observations by making this statement, which I believe to be wholly accurate? Those who are seeking to aid refugees from various countries in Europe, whether it be myself or the Government, who have a particular responsibility in this matter,

or whether it be the refugee organisations outside, have to deal with two entirely different sets of critics. One set of critics hold most sincerely the view which has been expressed in the last two speeches— may I in passing pay a tribute to the hon. Lady and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, little as I agree with them? —that not nearly enough is being done, that the British Government have shown a lack of sympathy and that we ought to bring out these refugees in millions. The other set of critics, though less vocal, are people not confined to any one particular Party—I am not speaking merely of anti-Semitists or Fascists—who say that in view of the great responsibilities we have towards our own people His Majesty's Government are doing as much as they ought to do to rescue people from foreign countries. Therefore, it is the duty of those who have responsibility, as I have as Chairman of the Committee and as in some measure handling refugee questions for the Government, to hold an even balance between the two extremes and to carry on this humanitarian work with the greatest amount of support possible from the general body of the public.
Before dealing with the work of the Committee, I will reply briefly to specific questions that have been raised. The hon. Lady asked me about the Spanish refugees. I can only repeat that the Government have made a substantial contribution towards the relief of suffering which has followed the Spanish civil war. The grants which the Government have made total over £100,000. We have given assistance in other ways and I cannot agree that we have not discharged our responsibilities most fully in that regard. Then there is the question of the assistance which has been given to the Czechs. I think I can best deal with that matter by referring to the statement which I made in this House on the 6th April last. I said:
It is the intention of the Government that the unexpended balance of £3,250,000 should not be regarded as withdrawn but that by one means or another it should continue to be available for the purpose for which it was originally intended, namely, to provide cost of transport and landing money for Czecho-Slovakian refugees when they go to their final place of settlement overseas. —"[Official Report, 6th April, 1939; col. 30S6, Vol. 345.]
The House gave authority to the Government to guarantee a loan of £8,000,000 to the Czecho-Slovakian


Government. The Czech State has now disappeared, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, this sum cannot be regarded as available for refugees. I know that I shall not be able to persuade the hon. Lady or the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that the course which the Government have taken is the right one. I can only repeat what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said and what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said in the course of previous Debates and in reply to questions. There is a distinct difference between the circumstances when the gift was announced to the former Czecho-Slovakian Government and the offer of the loan made in circumstances which do not exist to-day. There is an unexpended balance still of £4,000,000 and that money is being used for the purposes for which it was intended, namely, to get refugees out of Czecho-Slovakia, and I must repeat that His Majesty's Government cannot give any undertaking that they can add to that amount. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) raised a specific question about the case of Poland.

Sir Arthur Salter: There is one question I should like to put on the matter of the unused loan. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord fully understands the point. Of course we realise that owing to the changed circumstances the loan cannot go on. The question is this. Suppose the Treasury had been asked, as a purely technical matter, whether they would have preferred to have made a loan under the conditions which were contemplated, or alternately to have given a cash loan of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, would they not have regarded the second alternative as clearly a less obligation, and is there not therefore a moral obligation to regard a sum of that kind as a reasonable addition to the first £4,000,000?

Earl Winterton: I must not be drawn into a further argument on the question. There are at the present time 600,000 refugees in Germany, and I repeat that there is a distinction to be drawn between the two. I hope the hon. Member will not think me discourteous if I say that I cannot accept the thesis he has just put forward. In regard to the refugees in Poland, I do not think the situation is

quite as bad as the right hon. and gallant Member suggests. According to my information 2,000 refugees of Czecho-Slovak origin have been removed from Poland and are now in this country. There remain the 2,000 to which the right hon. and gallant Member referred, but I do not accept his suggestion that their condition is as bad as he thinks, and I can assure him that the question of the future of these refugees is being actively considered by His Majesty's Government at the present time, that is to say, they are endeavouring to see what steps can be taken to find a place for them. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the attitude of the Polish Government in this matter which has been most helpful.

Colonel Wedgwood: Has the noble Lord any reports from British vice-consuls?

Earl Winterton: Yes, we have constant reports from them, and the Foreign Office is hopeful that it may be possible to find some solution of the problem of the disposal of this 2,000.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton put a question to me in regard to the work of the Evian Committee, otherwise known as the London Inter-Governmental Committee. I hope I shall be able to show hon. Members who take an interest in these matters that very considerable progress has been made in the last few months. The main objects of the creation of this committee were to procure the co-operation of the German authorities in the orderly migration of Jewish and non-Aryan people, and to find places of temporary refuge and permanent settlement for these refugees. Its only concern is to find a practical solution of this problem. It is an organisation which is carried on with a minimum of expenditure. It has a small official staff with a distinguished ex-Indian administrator, Sir Herbert Emerson, at its head. The figures have not been given before, but not fewer that 150,000 people have left Germany since the Evian Committee was founded a year ago. Many countries for understandable but regrettable reasons do not publish their intake of refugees, but I will give one or two figures. The United States takes annually under its quota 27,000 German refugees; the actual intake has been a great deal larger because a number of temporary tourists have been


allowed to remain on, and it is probably in the neighbourhood of 40,000. We ourselves have 40,000 in this country at present, which is a complete answer to those who say that the British Government are doing nothing for German refugees.

Colonel Wedgwood: But of that 40,000 at least 10,000 go on to America.

Earl Winterton: The Colonial Empire, excluding Palestine and Transjordan, has absorbed about 1,700 persons in the six months ending the 31st March and probably the number will be more in the neighbourhood of 2,000 for the year. Australia is taking 5,000 a year for three years, and Brazil has taken 11,000 and will possibly take 8,000 more. It is not known exactly what proportion of the Palestine quota in recent years has consisted of refugees, but the number must be large.
The great majority of these persons are now in temporary refuge or in permanent settlement, and only a comparatively small proportion are floating about the world at present trying to find some place to go to. The absorption has been mainly, but not entirely, by infiltration. Whether this continues on the same scale or not, it will be materially reinforced by schemes of larger-scale settlement. The British Guiana settlement scheme will commence this Autumn. San Domingo appears to offer wide opportunities. The Report of the Philippines has not yet reached this country, but is said to be favourable. There is some scope for settlement in Northern Rhodesia, and other opportunities of settlement are being looked into. It is a mistake to imagine that any one country, Palestine or anywhere else, can possibly absorb all potential refugees. On the contrary, cumulative effort alone can succeed. It is an enormous task and it means the co-operation of many countries, not forgetting the country of origin.
The hon. Lady referred in favourable terms—I was pleased to have that tribute from her—to the invitation which was announced by the Prime Minister, and which I announced to my colleagues of the Evian Committee, to co-operate by direct assistance in a plan to stimulate private subscriptions to an International fund to finance the migration of refugees overseas. I hope there will be a favourable reception to that invitation, but I

must again emphasise that the Government could not contemplate, nor would British public opinion tolerate, unilateral action which suggested that the Government had some special and sole responsibility for refugees. In addition to that, there is this important factor, that a far greater responsibility rests upon the expelling Governments than on any of the Governments of reception, and it is for that reason that the Evian Committee has pursued undeviatingly the first of its main objects of trying to induce Germany to agree to an orderly migration of refugees from that country, instead of a disorderly exodus, with all its concomitants of attempts to jump the Frontier and illegal smuggling into Palestine and elsewhere.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that considerable progress has been made in that regard. I need not recapitulate the offer which the German authorities made, but I think it is material to state that steps have already been taken to regulate and in some respects to ameliorate the conditions of Jews there. Sir Herbert Emerson has had contact with the German authorities on many occasions and I understand that, with the formation of a distinguished private refugee foundation on a broad international basis outside Germany, the way is now clear for the establishment in Germany of an internal trust, the effect of which would be, according to the German statement of intentions, to relieve some of the financial burdens now falling on private refugee bodies. The nominal value of the Trust would run to many millions sterling. If this plan materialises it is not egoistic for me, as Chairman of the London Inter-governmental Committee, to say that it will be a considerable achievement on the part of the director and the Committee, and I have good reason to believe that it will. The International foundation of a voluntary character to which I have referred will have a very distinguished body of trustees, Jew and Gentile, composed of United States and British citizens. I hope that it will include at least one former American Ambassador to this country, together with several names very well known in this country who have experience in refugee work.
The worst service that anyone can do to the refugee movement is to encourage


in any way the illicit entry of refugees into any country, including Palestine. There is not a country represented on my Committee which does not condemn most strongly illegal traffic into Palestine, Holland, Belgium or elsewhere. A great deal of trouble has been caused to the Belgian and Dutch authorities—incidentally both Belgium and Holland have done a great deal for refugees—and the French and Swiss have all suffered from this illicit migration. That must be my answer to the right hon. Gentleman about the refugees from Czecho-Slovakia. We cannot for a moment accept any responsibility whatever for the conditions under which assistance was given to the 700 Czech Jews who attempted to get into Palestine. While no British subjects are concerned in or connive in this traffic, big money is being made in certain countries in Europe, with the connivance of certain authorities, in this cruel traffic, which is in some respects comparable to the white slave traffic. They are being asked to give enormous sums of money in order to be smuggled over the Frontier to Holland and Belgium and into Palestine and elsewhere. I should not be doing justice to the interests of the Evian Committee or representing the views of its officers if I did not say that we condemn in the strongest terms this illegal immigration. The figures that I have given, the hopes that arise from the circumstances that I have described and the conversations that have gone on with the German authorities all show that this problem is soluble over the period of the next two or three years, but only if Members of this House and the public outside in every country will approach the matter in a common sense, judicial spirit and try to find a common view point and a common aim.

Colonel Wedgwood: Are we to understand that nothing is to be done for these Czechs, for whom we are responsible, who have managed to escape to Rhodes and Beyrout, and the Colonial Office do not allow them into Cyprus or Palestine?

Earl Winterton: I cannot accept the view that we have some particular and sole responsibilty. The Government have made it clear throughout that there are special circumstances concerning conditions in Czecho-Slovakia which have made them willing to give special assistance. The right hon. Gentleman, like so many

other critics of the Government, assumes that everything that has happened in Europe is due to some original sin of the British Government, just as critics of the French Government say that it is due to original sin on their part. It is due to the original sin of neither. Certain deplorable circumstances have arisen and, in those circumstances, the Government have done the best they can for these unfortunate refugees.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.

3.5 p.m.

Sir Murdoch MacDonald: An hour or two ago we listened to what I regarded as being a wonderful speech by the Prime Minister— wonderful in the sense that it showed the mind of the Prime Minister and the Government in regard to foreign affairs, better even than the regulated despatches which the Prime Minister has read to the House on previous occasions. It was the humane and natural utterance of a man who is oppressed by what he sees in front of him, especially in connection with China and Japan and the treatment of our people there. I wish that there could have been a very full House to listen to the Prime Minister, and certainly, I hope that all his critics will read that speech when it appears in the Official Report, and digest what he said, realise fully what was in his mind, and ask themselves whether they cannot trust the Government properly to conduct its affairs. Following that Debate on China and Japan and foreign affairs generally, there was introduced the subject of refugees and distressed people in many parts of the world. Like every other hon. Member, I have the very deepest sympathy for these people, and I would do everything I could to help to relieve the distress which unfortunately afflicts certain places. We have just heard that the Government have been doing their share; whether or not that share is adequate or not is not a matter for discussion at the moment.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, while there may be, and indeed are, distressed people in many countries of the world, we have here at home 250,000 people of whom at least 100,000 are in circumstances in which we would not like to meet them. On Tuesday last, the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement in regard to the Highlands and Islands area, where


these people are living. That statement, however we may regard it, obviously is the first definite step towards a real attempt to put the situation right. It is a small and halting step. We have to-day as Secretary of State for Scotland a man who is fully cognisant of the position. If I read his mind aright, he is just as determined as I or any other Member can be to put the situation right, but he has very great lions in his path. There is the Treasury, and not only that, there is the preoccupation of the Government with the international situation. Obviously, the dark clouds that are hovering over us make the present a difficult time in which to deal with a problem of this kind.
In so far as my right hon. Friend has taken the first step, however halting we may consider that step to be, we realise that he is making an endeavour to deal with this situation. I congratulate him on having done so and I am deeply grateful to him for having taken that first step. I hope these halting steps will in due course be followed by other measures. I hope that, when the arrangements have been made for the expenditure of the money which my right hon. Friend intimated was to be spent in the first year, he will be able to come to that Box and announce a great step forward and a great advance on the present programme. He has ample material to help him in coming to a conclusion. Major Hilleary, an English gentleman, living in the Island of Skye, who knows the Highlands as intimately, I suppose, as any of us, very kindly agreed to devote his time to the formation, with certain other ladies and gentlemen, of a committee to go into this question. That committee produced the Highlands and Islands Report and all the evidence which the Secretary of State can require is in that report. Indeed there seems little to be done except to give effect to the various recommendations in the report.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): One of the difficulties about the report is that a large part of the recommendations takes the form of advice that there should be further examination. The practical suggestions on which action could be taken, form only a relatively small part of the recommendations.

Sir M. MacDonaid: I was coming to that point. The Secretary of State on Tuesday intimated that he intended to hold certain conferences. He did not propose to adopt the specific suggestion in the report that a commissioner should be appointed for the area to make proposals to him. He said he proposed to hold conferences with his own officials. If I heard his correctly, he added that it was his intention to call in other people who were cognisant of the circumstances and that those other people, along with his own officials, would formulate the policy which he could consider and present to the Government for their adoption.
It may be asked: Why should this part of our own country be in such a distressful condition? For the answer we have to go back very far into history. The origins of this problem are dealt with in the historical narrative contained in the report to which I have just referred. It gives a resum6 of the history of the Highlands from about 1750 onwards, and I think it is about the best written and most concise statement on the subject that I have seen. The young man who wrote that historical narrative is to be congratulated on the clearness and accuracy of his statement. He showed there quite conclusively why it is that we are faced with this situation to-day. There were two things. First, there was the iniquitous condition of the land laws. In 1886 an effort was made to put these right, and another effort was made in 1911. Both these efforts were excellent, but they were niggardly. [Interruption.] We have greater hopes for the future than I think we had in the past. Those Acts of 1886 and 1911 did alleviate the position, but they did not put it right, and what I would like to impress upon the Secretary of State is this, that taking niggardly steps, spending a little money now and a little money again, and having a large staff as a consequence to control the expenditure, is really wasting public money. It is far better to have a thorough and drastic scheme at once and to put right the situation than to continue dribbling money into an almost bottomless pit and not get a proper return from it.
I am glad to see my right hon. Colleague the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) in his place,


for I was going on to say that Free Trade was one of the major causes of the disaster which overtook the Highlands in the early years of last century. If those effects were a necessity, if it was necessary to impose Free Trade in the Highlands in those days, it was only reasonable that the Government should have said "The effect of our proposals is to put a vast number of people out of work, and if we do, what is to happen?" We all know what did happen. Those people had to emigrate, and they did not even emigrate under the conditions to which an hon. Member referred a few moments ago in regard to refugees. They emigrated very largely to America and Canada, by the tens of thousands, just because of the introduction of Free Trade. The introduction itself might have been quite right, but it was the duty of the Government to see that some step was taken to replace other work, whereby these people could get a living.

Mr. Bracken: Did not the Scottish emigrants take away all the best jobs from the English?

Mr. Maxton: We did the jobs, and they got the money.

Sir M. MacDonald: Those things that I have mentioned cause a condition in the Highlands which, notwithstanding 1886 and 1911, has not yet been put right. As a consequence, the steps now being taken by the Secretary of State in order to remedy these things are just as vitally necessary as they were at the moment when those effects took place long ago. I could quote specific instances of the niggardly or unfortunate methods adopted in dealing with the problems involved. That country is largely a sheep country. Just after the War sheep stocks were bought and tenants were placed in possession. It is true that they got their sheep stocks at a reduction on what the Government had paid for them, but still the prices were far and away higher than present-day market-values, and as a consequence those tenants, all small people, are paying interest on large sums which bear no real relation to the actual value of the stocks they hold. I did not hear the Secretary of State refer to that particular aspect of the matter on Tuesday, but I hope he will carefully take into consideration the position of the sheep-stock holders throughout the Western Highlands

of Scotland. His colleague the Minister of Agriculture has been endeavouring to help sheep farmers by means of a subsidy, but that is a means of saving the really well-to-do farmer from falling into bankruptcy by enabling him to get a price for his sheep which will meet his costs and leave something over for himself. That remedy takes no account whatever of the heavy interest charges which the crofter population have to pay in connection with their sheep stock, and it has to be remembered that they are people in a very small way who feel the weight of this burden more than other classes of sheep farmers.
There is one other matter to which I would ask the Secretary of State to give serious attention. A few years ago I brought to his notice the fact that a certain pier in Skye had fallen into disrepair. It had originally been built—or the extension part, to which I am now referring—ut of funds provided by the Government. Promise after promise that the pier would be repaired has been given and some 11 months ago I understood from the Secretary of State that matters were in train for settlement, yet not a thing has been done up to the moment in the way of starting work.

Mr. Colville: I said that so far as I was concerned agreement had been reached. It is for the local authorities to carry out the work, and I suggest that the hon. Member should make his representations in that quarter.

Sir M. MacDonald: It may well be the fault of the local authority, but local authorities have to act under regulations which the Secretary of State controls. Local authorities now have to get a Provisional Order before they can carry out such work, and apparently that takes a long time, and I have no doubt that partly explains the long delay. But there was no such delay in the past when the Government acted through the Congested Districts Board. If it was decided that the money should be spent the work used to be started within a month or two, whereas now there are delays which are sometimes unconscionably long. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to indicate that this niggardly step is not all that he intends to take, and that a very great programme can be envisaged for the future to put right this grievance.

3.25 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: The last speaker is perfectly right when he says that the problem began early and in the middle of the eighteenth century. Prior to that time we had in the Highlands a kindly civilisation. It was broken up by the purely commercial outlook of the landed system which was then imposed upon them. In those days there was an administration in this country which passed the Septennial Act extending the life of Parliament because they knew that the country was against them. They even increased the number of peers to do it so as to have time during which they could get through laws to cast out those who were opposed to them. They thus created problems which are still facing us in our time. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful to the present regime, but I believe that if the Highlands had succeeded in those days we would never have lost the American Colonies and we should never have had the Great War.
Let me tell the House what they did in regard to land laws. There was no landlord system in the Highlands at all. There were seldom even written titles. There was clan land on which rents were not levied but feudal dues were paid to the chiefs of the clans, to keep up their dignity. It was for the chief to foster the welfare of his clansmen and they did that in a very loyal spirit. Of course they had the right to pit and gallows and occasionally they hanged one or two of their clansmen but only when the clan was of unanimous opinion that the person in question was a bad lot and would be none the worse for hanging. The Government ordained in 1746 that they would put an end to the strength of the clans because the Government have got a proper shock at Prestonpans and Falkirk when Johnny Cope was not up in time. They passed land laws assimilating this primitive and yet much more humane system, far more admirable system of land tenure, to the English land tenure. They ordained that all land must be held by an individual or by a corporation and that the holding of land just as clan land, as the swans hold their pieces of land in the Thames, by the strength of their own right arm—if any other clan invaded them the invaders had to suffer for it— was to be put an end to.
The way it was got round—the clansmen always try to get round this kind of thing—was that they went to Edinburgh where there was a factory for forged titles. They took their leading clansman with them and he conveyed the clan land to the chief. After the chief had been 40 years on the sasine register the land became the chief's in law. It was all very well while the old chiefs were alive because they knew they were really trustees for their people and things went on pretty well but after they died because they had got their sons into the English army or had sent them to English schools to be educated, they spoiled good Scotsmen and did not make Englishmen of them. He got into habits different from those of his ancestors. He got into debt, and then the land was mortgaged and sold. Then the sheep farmers came on the scene. The land was not always used for sheep. It was used for the rearing of black cattle, as you will find if you read Dr. Johnson's "Tour of the Hebrides." There were innumerable cattle in the Highlands in those days, and, if the rearing of cattle could be carried on there now, they could supply enough "baby beef" to keep the towns of Scotland going in a much better way than by buying meat from abroad. [An Hon. Member: "What about the bracken?"] The cattle trample down and destroy the bracken much more than sheep do. Sheep will ruin a pasture, because they just nibble off the fine grasses and leave the coarse grasses to grow. The Highlands have gradually deteriorated more and more under sheep, and no measures should be taken to help the sheep farmers, welcome as they are as far as they go, because such measures will not restore the fertility of the land. The only way to do that is to bring back the cattle.
I have given some of the real causes of the ruin of the Highlands. The people had a national dress, which, owing to the fact that in those days they did not double-dip sheep, was a waterproof costume in which they could stand up to the climate—and it is a terrible climate. Above all, they had the sacred right to make their own refreshment, they had the right of private distillation. Every crofter and fisherman had his own small still, and with his small still, his waterproof kilt, and his chief to look after him, he could laugh at the climate.

Mr. Bracken: Surely my hon. and learned Friend must pay some tribute to modern civilisation? There was then no central heating to help the Highlanders keep warm in their kilts?

Mr. Macquisten: They were able to make a far better source of warmth for themselves, and that enabled them to stand up to the climate. It has all been taken from them, which is a perfect outrage. I remember talking with one old Highlander in the Mull of Cantyre, who had just got his old age pension, while still allowed to work on the roads for a wage of 18s. His main complaint had always been the cost of his draw. I asked him what it cost him per week, and he said, "It is only half-a-crown a week now; the pension pays the other 10s. I am ashamed," he said, "to be buying my refreshment out of a shop; when we were young we all made our own, as we baked our own bread. It is far easier to make than to bake good bread. I would do it yet, but the neighbours are so treacherous, and would tell about one I think it must be the education that has corrupted them. I cannot see why I should not do it yet. The food is my own; why cannot I cook it in the way that I want, without the Government interfering?" Is there any Member of the House who can answer that simple question? "Why cannot I cook my own barley in the way that I want to cook it?" It is a monstrous interference with human liberty. When I raise this question, it is made a subject of derision and laughter. The reason is that, under the modern system or education, people do not think for themselves, and are incapable of taking anything back to first principles.
As I have said, the Highlanders lost three important things. They lost the fostering care of their chiefs; they lost their national costume, which has be-come a subject of ridicule; now is only worn by the lairds and factors, and by Englishmen who come North. All these things have been taken from the Highlander, and he had got into a terrible position when the Crofters Act, 1886, was passed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) has said. I was present at the opening of the Glen Albyn road past Loch Ness, where the workmen could not get to work for the char-a-bancs full of people from

every part of the world who were watching for the Loch Ness monster. One of the county officials told me that in Inverness there are still what are known as squatters: men who escaped after the "'45," when the Highlands were hunted down in a fashion as bad as anything experienced by the Belgians and almost as bad as was experienced by the Abyssinians. They hid in Inverness, and some of the lairds there, although they had not themselves risen in the "'45" let them squat; and this squatting grew into a definite legal right, as has been decided in the Court of Session. A squatter pays no rent, because he has no lease, and is under no obligations, and the landlord pays no rates or taxes on him because he does not receive any rent; and neither does the squatter pay rates or taxes. I was asked whether I would assist in getting these people brought under taxation, and I said, "No; thank God there are still some places in Scotland where a man can escape these sharks of collectors of rates and taxes. I will not assist you."
Every right that the people had has been taken from them by the processes of economic law, and so you need to go to Canada to find Gaelic newspapers and the best of Gaelic spoken. There are a great many things which can be done. Look at the roads which are built. You put great costly boulevards, like the road to Glencoe, which motors scorch through before they see anything but the speedway in front of them but there are all the little side roads. The Minister for obstructing Transport, whom we call the Minister of Transport, might go to the Islands and see the road to Port-nahaven in Islay and Salen in Mull, where decent 14 foot roads have been cut down to nine feet, so that if two motorists meet each other half way it is a question of who is to give way and difficult to decide at times who is to go back.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Is the hon. And learned Member aware that he is describing the state of hundreds of roads in Wales?

Mr. Macquisten: Yes, I think that the state of roads in Wales is pretty bad, but hundreds of Welshmen manage to get out of Wales. Steamers have been running to and between Glasgow and Campbeltown, which was once one of the richest towns in the whole of Scotland


It had a coal mine, a shipyard and 24 distilleries. They brought untold millions of pounds to the Treasury. It was the most lucrative industry in the Highlands and the most profitable for the Empire and did much to keep the balance of trade open. It was made in Scotland and they have taken it all away. They have reduced it so much by this savage taxation that most of the distilleries are closed down and now only two are working. The poor people in Campbeltown, to the extent of 50 per cent., have been unemployed for years and years, sitting wondering what has happened. Most of the distillery owners have retired and have become country gentlemen with large fortunes, but the people have been left derelict.
Now the steamers have been taken off, and there appears to be no means of appealing to the Secretary of State about the matter. It will happen unless they can get some sort of subsidy. Why can we not do something for transport in the Highlands as they do in Norway, where they subsidise steamers which call at all the remote ports, no matter how small the place is, because that makes a steamer service and it is better than letting the service be cut down? They are awfully intelligent in Norway. If a man is travelling with his wife they can go for fare and a quarter. There are other little human touches of that sort. I want to urge the Secretary of State to do that kind of thing with the object of getting better and cheaper transport. Let him point out to the Treasury what they are taking out of the Highlands distilleries and the hardship that is being caused to the, Highlands.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I very much regret that my time is limited to four or five minutes because I must give the Secretary of State sufficient time to reply. I hope that we shall be able to make some better arrangements in the future than having only 1½ hours in which to discuss Scottish affairs. Perhaps it might be possible to induce some hon. Members to come to the point rather more rapidly. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) was very interesting but not too topical in his discussion of Highland affairs. It is a lamentable feature of this House that on

almost all Highland occasions we are limited to a' few minutes, and we have made repeated protests on many occasions. This points to the need for greater control by the Scottish people of their own administration and legislation. I say emphatically that there is no other way to solve this problem but for the Scottish people to have full control over their own government in a Scottish parliament. We have had proof of this, year after year when Scottish affairs have to be discussed in a very few hours. We need more control over our own affairs.
I shall not take more than three or four minutes in what I have to say. I am not going to pretend to disagree with the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) that the Secretary of State is sincerely anxious to help Scotland, I know that is perfectly true. After experience of three other Secretaries of State I can say that the right hon. Gentleman is by far the most effective of them and I believe the best intentioned. His success with the Treasury must be modified by the fact that he was trained at the Treasury, and therefore the fight with his old colleagues must be softened a little. Even he has come to realise that Scotland is not getting justice from the Treasury. On the question of roads and piers about which the hon. Gentleman for Inverness spoke at some length we are to get only £300,000 in five years. Does the Minister honestly think that that will go very far towards a solution of the problem of the provision of second class roads, parish roads, Department Settlement roads for which the State is directly responsible, and so on? The Minister will have to tackle the Treasury if he is to deal with the problem properly.
With regard to land improvement the Minister should acquire for the purpose as much land as he possibly can for the State. When the Department of Agriculture does acquire lands they should drain them, clear them of bracken, and as soon as possible fence them properly. In many Department estates we lack the water supplies, roads and drainage necessary for successful agricultural settlement.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman intends to encourage co-operative marketing which I have long advocated as one of the fundamental needs of the Highlands and Islands, especially among the fishermen and that he is going to do something on the question of veterinary


services. This is a very important question, especially in some of the southern islands, where they lose a great number of cattle every year owing to the lack of veterinary surgeons whom they have to charter at a cost from Skye. Although it is a very small contribution in relation to the size of the problem, I am glad that he is going to help in the supply of motor boats and engines for the use of the lobster and local fishermen, and I would ask him especially to concentrate upon places like the Island of Eriskay, where the fishing community is almost in ruins to-day; and there are many other places like it in the other Islands about which I shall be glad to give him information.
In regard to agricultural training, I am glad that it is proposed to arrange for a number of demonstration crofts to see what can be done in regard to land and agricultural improvement, in addition to having the existing isolated and rather remote large scale demonstration farms far from the crofters' homes. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the possibility of acquiring 50 or 100 acres of land round certain villages in the rough pastures. I can guarantee that many of the villages will be very anxious to help to improve the land for an experimental period of three or four years, which is the minimum time necessary for such improvements. They cannot afford to do it as it requires fencing; and I suggest he might set up a separate fund of money for fencing.
As to freights, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken up the idea which was put to himself and the Postmaster-General by me in the MacBrayne debate of the flat rate for goods to and from the Islands for carriage in the subsidised steamer area. With regard to afforestation there has been a number of protests against agricultural land being put under afforestation, but I agree that the extension of scientific and economic afforestation is in the national interest. It can be very useful in connection with land drainage and other agricultural problems. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon producing some proposals.
I should not like to see a non-democratic over-ruling commissioner running the whole of the Islands, and Highlands. I believe that it is impossible to find a man or committee of men who could be made successfully responsible for this

work. The local authorities have known and definite responsibilities, and they can, if not efficient, be turned out by the people if they feel like it. They must not be allowed to shirk these responsibilities. But they cannot be expected to undertake the reconstruction of this wide area and deal with its longstanding and difficult problems until the Secretary of State and the Government agree that it is worth while to provide the finance.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Golville: The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has made, in a few minutes, a very useful contribution and has touched upon a number of practical points in relation to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I too am sorry we could not have had a longer time to debate this question to-day. If the official Opposition had not staged a Foreign Affairs debate for the third or fourth occasion this week, we could perhaps have taken more interest in subjects nearer home.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange with the Government to give a day of parliamentary time after the Recess to discuss Highlands and Islands affairs?

Mr. Colville: That is not a matter with which I can deal, but no doubt the hon. Member's suggestion will be noted. But as I say I should have liked an opportunity for longer discussion to-day. The proposals that I outlined to the House must be reviewed against the background of the present financial situation of the country. We have never at any time in our history had to face such a strain on our finances as we are facing to-day. While some of the critics of the proposals I made have failed to recognise this fact, I am sure that the majority of the people do recognise the background under which we have to consider all our social improvements and advances in these days. It is unfortunate that that is so, but it is true, and it is because of the tremendous expenditure on National Defence that we are bearing.

Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the rehabilitation of Scotland is of far greater importance to the country than the building of a Dreadnought?

Mr. Colville: The preservation of Scotland as part of the British Empire is also of very great importance.

Mr. Macquisten: If we had not plenty of Dreadnoughts we should neither have England nor Scotland.

Mr. Colville: I must not be drawn away from my point, and that is, the background of the expenditure on National Defence. At the same time we must not forget the amount of money that is being spent at the present time on the Highlands and Islands. There is a population of about 290,000 in the Highlands and Islands, roughly one seventeenth of the total population of Scotland, and undoubtedly per head of population there is much more State money being spent in the seven crofting counties than elsewhere. It has been recognised by successive Governments that the people who live in those countries have certain physical difficulties to contend against, owing to the character of the country in which they live.

Mr. Maxton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures?

Mr. Colville: I am going to give figures. The proposals which I outlined the other day were for an additional sum of £65,000 a year to be spent on certain services in the Highland and Islands during the period of five years. I notice that one critic of the Government was reported in the Press to have said that it was not £65,000 a year that was wanted, but £500,000 for 10 years. That is a very modest requirement compared with what is being spent in the Highlands to-day. Far more than £500,000 of State money has been spent in the crofting counties in the last year. The figure was just under £2,000,000 of direct State grants.

Mr. Maxton: Two million pounds?

Mr. Colville: In the seven crofting counties the amount of State money spent was about £2,000,000, and it will be considerably more this year, because there are certain grants, such as the oats subsidy, which tend to come into our crofting counties. There is for instance the crofting counties road programme. Again, in addition to the Land Settlement and Crofter Housing Schemes the Department of Agriculture paid out last year £58,000 for services which included assistance to local authorities for roads,

piers, harbours and other public works. Then the Scottish Education Department paid special grants of £103,000 in the same period to the Highland and Islands Counties. With these special grants and other financial arrangements of the Education Department, the Exchequer meets 72 per cent, of the education expenditure in the Highlands and Islands compared with 51½ per cent, in the rest of the country. Then there is the Highlands and Islands Medical Service scheme, amounting to expenditure annually of over £100,000. In the present year the estimate is for £10,000 more. This scheme will have a very beneficial effect on conditions in the Highlands and Islands and will undoubtedly be of great assistance. I could give many other examples of the practical things that are being done directly as a result of State assistance in the Highlands and Islands. The Island of South Uist, for instance, is being joined to the Island of Benbecula by a bridge and causeway.

Mr. Maxton: I have reckoned up the figures and they do not come to £2,000,000.

Mr. Colville: I was only giving examples. The bridge between these two islands will be a great boon. The cost of the scheme is £37,000, of which 75 per cent, is being met by the Ministry of Transport and 15 per cent, by the Department of Agriculture. It could not have been undertaken but for that assistance. In the case of another pier which is costing £1,000 this will be provided almost entirely from State funds, and there is the case of another scheme in the Island of Lewis which I announced yesterday, by which the fishing community will be helped. Nobody can dismiss as of no account a proposal to place at the disposal of local authorities £60,000 a year or £300,000 in all, a great part of which is to go for the provision of necessary services which I have been urged to provide, namely, for roads which are not covered already by grants and the provision and repair of piers. There is a good deal of loose speaking as to what can be done to rehabilitate the Highlands and Islands. Some people imagine that they can be covered with towns like Dumbarton, engineering centres, which would bring employment to the Highlands. I


do not think anything of that sort is possible. We must work within the conditions in the Highlands for which certain employment only is suitable, and do our best to stimulate enterprises which would give that employment. It is with that end in view that the supplementary programme has been undertaken, towards helping the kind of enterprises in the Highlands which can be developed.
In the realm of agriculture the provision of fertilisers will undoubtedly help, and provision is also made for assistance to township or grazing committees to enable them to undertake field and hill drainage. I have been urged to do something more as regards bracken cutting. It presents a difficult problem, and at one time I thought it would not be possible to do anything but I now have in mind a scheme whereby assistance can be given to the cutting of bracken by hand. We thus hope to give further help to get rid of this dreadful pest. I admit that machine-cutting does not really meet the case in certain types of land. Then there is the provision of training and demonstration in agriculture, to which some prominence is given in the recommendations of the committee. My proposals should effect a considerable advance in this connection. Another proposal is for loans towards the provision of motor boats for lobster fishing and of engines for existing boats. I propose by this means to assist the lobster fishing industry in the Western Isles. I also hope to assist the fishermen in getting their products on the market by arranging a reduction of steamer freights.
I have not found it possible to adopt the recommendation for the appointment of a Commission, but that has not been without a great deal of thought. The Commissioners' function was in the first place to survey conditions and to conduct investigations. I agree that further investigations in certain matters are very necessary, but I would submit that no one can take away responsibility from the Secretary of State and from the local authorities in administration. I propose therefore, to have regular conferences with my Departments and also with other departments concerned, such as the Ministry of Transport and the Post Office, with the concurrence of their Ministers. These conferences should prove most useful in enabling a general picture of the requirements of the Highland area to be made, and in helping to make more fruitful the many measures which the Government are taking for the development of its resources.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In the last minute I want to make a protest and say that it is quite absurd to give us only one hour for the discussion of these most important matters.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Four of the Clock until Tuesday, 3rd October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 2nd August